High Court · 2025

CRL OP (MD) No.6409 of 2025BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction )Date : 07/04/2025PRESENTTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVELCRL OP (MD) No.6409 of 2025M.Rajalingam ... Petitioner/A1 VsState of Tamil Nadu rep. byThe Inspector of Police,Aravakurichi Police Station,Karur District.(Crime No. 85 of 2025)... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.Gunasekaran.R, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSSPRAYER :-For Bail in Crime No.85 of 2025 on the file of the respondent-police.1/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP (MD) No.6409 of 2025ORDER : The Court made the following order :- This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner on 03.04.2025under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, praying togrant bail.2. The petitioner/ Accused No.1 was arrested and remanded to judicial custodyon 25.03.2025 for the offences punishable under Section 303(2) of BNS, 2023 andSection 21(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 inCrime No.85 of 2025 on the file of the respondent-police.3. The case of the prosecution is that, on 25.03.2025, at about 22:00 hours, basedon a complaint given by the Assistant Director, Flying Force, Geology and Mining,Trichy Zone, Trichy, and the Assistant Geologist, the respondent-police registered acase against the petitioner and others. In the complaint, it has been stated that whilethe aforesaid officials were conducting vehicle check-up near ThirumanikkampattiVillage, Aravakurichi Taluk, they found that the petitioner and other accused wereillegally transporting six units of gravel sand in a Taurus Lorry bearing RegistrationNo.TN-47-AH-9132, without any valid license or permission. The value of the gravel2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP (MD) No.6409 of 2025sand is Rs.3,888/-. During the inspection, the driver of the lorry escaped from thespot. The officials seized the vehicle along with the gravel sand and handed it over tothe respondent-police. Hence, the case. 4. Mr.R.Gunasekaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits thatthe petitioner has nothing to do with the alleged offence and that a false case has beenfoisted against the petitioner. He however submits that the petitioner is ready toabide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. He further submits thatthe petitioner has been in incarceration since 25.03.2025. He further submits that therespondent-police has no right to register the case under Section 21(1) of Mines andMinerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. He further submits that thealleged offence under Section 303(2) of BNS is bailable in nature, since the value ofthe minerals is less than Rs.5,000/-. Therefore, he prays for granting bail to thepetitioner.5. Per contra, Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi, learned Government Advocate (CriminalSide) appearing for the respondent-police, submits that the petitioner and otheraccused illegally transported six units of gravel sand. He further submits that that thepetitioner has one previous case, which is not similar in nature. He however submits3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP (MD) No.6409 of 2025that if bail is granted to the petitioner, he may abscond and delay the investigationproceeding. Therefore, he vehemently opposes to grant bail to the petitioner.6. Heard on both side. This Court has perused the records.7. In the present case, the defacto complainant is none other than the AssistantDirector, Flying Squad, Department of Geology and Mining, Trichy Zone, Trichy. Hehas himself stated that the value of the allegedly transported minerals is Rs.3,888/-.In these circumstances, the offence under Section 303(2) of the Bharatiya NyayaSanhita, 2023, is Non-cognizable and bailable as per the First Schedule of BNSS, 2023.Therefore, the respondent-police has no power or authority to register an FIR for theoffence punishable under Section 21(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development andRegulation) Act, 1957, in view of the bar under Section 22 of the said Act. It isapposite to extract Section 22 of the Act, which reads as under:“ 22. Cognizance of offences.- No court shall take cognizance ofany offence punishable under this Act or any rules made thereunderexcept upon complaint in writing made by a person authorised in thisbehalf by the Central Government or the State Government.”7.1. However, it is seen that, invariably, throughout the State of Tamil Nadu, the4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP (MD) No.6409 of 2025police are registering FIRs under Section 21(1) of the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, despite the statutory bar under Section 22of the said Act. It is also pertinent to note that the offence under Section 21(1) of theMines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 is compoundable innature. It is further learnt that, vide G.O.Ms.No.12, Industries (MMC1) Department,dated 02.02.2009, police personnel not below the rank of Inspector of Police have beenauthorised to file complaints under Section 22 of the said Act. However, for reasonsbest known to them, the police are reluctant to invoke the proper procedure underthe law. See (i) Pradeep S.Wodeyar vs. State of Karnataka, reported in (2021) 19 SCC62, (ii) Sengol and others Vs. State rep. by the Inspector of Police, R.S.MangalamPolice Station and others, reported in 2012 (2) CTC 369, (iii) Annadurai Vs. TheInspector of Police, Kurisilapet Police Station (2024:MHC:380)].7.2. As far as the present case is concerned, since the total value of the mineralsis below Rs.5,000/-, the offence under Section 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023, is Non-cognizable and bailable in nature. This aspect was not brought to thenotice of the learned Principal District Judge, Karur. If it was brought to his notice,the learned Principal District Judge might have granted bail. Considering the above,and also considering the stage of investigation and the fact that the petitioner has5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP (MD) No.6409 of 2025permanent residence and deep roots in the society, and therefore, there is lesspossibility of absconding, and taking note of the fact that the vehicle along withgravel sand has been seized, and with a view to give an opportunity to the petitionerto reform himself, this Court is inclined to grant an order of bail to the petitioner,however, subject to the following conditions:(i) The petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousandonly) along with two sureties each for a like sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees TenThousand only) to the satisfaction of the learned District Munsif Cum JudicialMagistrate, Aravakurichi, Karuri District;(ii) The sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in theApplication for Suretyship [Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules ofPractice, 2019']. The learned District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Aravakurichi,Karuri District, shall obtain a copy of any one of identity proofs to ensure theiridentity;(iii) The petitioner shall furnish his residential address and mobile number tothe learned District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Aravakurichi, Karuri District;6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP (MD) No.6409 of 2025(iv) The petitioner shall appear and sign before the respondent-police as andwhen required for interrogation;(v) The petitioner shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the bond tobe executed under Chapter XXXV of BNS, 2023;(vi) The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which heis accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected;(vii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threator promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade himfrom disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with theevidence; and(viii) On breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned DistrictMunsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Aravakurichi, Karuri District, is entitled to passappropriate orders against the petitioner in accordance with law as if theaforementioned conditions are imposed by him as laid down by the Hon'ble SupremeCourt in P.K. Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005) 13 SCC 283].7/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP (MD) No.6409 of 20258. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed subject to theconditions stated supra.9.In view of FIR in Crime No.85 of 2025, this Court issues direction to theDistrict Collector, Karur District, and the Superintendent of Police, Karur District, tofile a report pertaining to the registration of Crime No.85 of 2025 on 22.04.2025. Listthe matter on 22.04.2025, for filing report. sd/- 07/04/2025 / TRUE COPY / 07/04/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S. I / II / III / IV) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. VSGTO1 THE DISTRICT MUNSIF CUMJUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ARAVAKURICHI, KARUR DISTRICT.2 DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATEKARUR DISTRICT.3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,ARAVAKURICHI POLICE STATION,KARUR DISTRICT.8/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP (MD) No.6409 of 20254 THE OFFICER INCHARGESUB JAIL, KARUR.5 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. COPY TO:1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTORKARUR DISTRICT2 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KARUR DISTRICT.+1 CC to M/s.R.GUNASEKARAN, Advocate ( SR-3991[I] dated 07/04/2025 ) ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.6409 of 2025 Date :07/04/2025 SS/SAR- /07/04/2025/ 9P/9CMadurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 9/9