High Court · 2025

CRL OP(MD).No.10109 of 2025BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction )Reserved on : 18.06.2025Pronounced on : 24.06.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VADAMALAICRL OP(MD).No.10109 of 20251.Kamaladasan, S/o.Anandan2.Kalaiarasan, S/o.Ganapathy3.Raja @ Rajkumar, S/o.Periyakaruppan... Petitioners / Accused Nos.2, 4 & 5Vs.The State of Tamil Nadu,Rep by the Inspector of Police, S.S.Kottai Police Station, Sivagangai District. (Crime No.55 of 2025) ... Respondent / ComplainantPRAYER :- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of the BharatiyaNagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), for bail in Crime No.55 of 2025 on the file ofthe respondent police.1/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD).No.10109 of 2025 For Petitioners: Mr.R.Gandhi,Senior Counselfor Mr.A.Balaji, Advocate. For Respondent :Mr.S.Ravi,Additional Public Prosecutorassisted byMr.B.Thanga Aravindh,Government Advocate (Criminal Side)ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners / accused nos.2, 4 and 5, who were arrested and remanded tojudicial custody on 22.05.2025 and 23.05.2025 respectively for the offences underSection 106(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which was later altered toSection 105 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 21(1) of the Mines andMinerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, in Crime No.55 of 2025 on thefile of the respondent police, seeks bail. 2. The case of the prosecution is that, on 20.05.2025 at about 12.00 p.m., thedefacto complainant, who is serving as the Village Administrative Officer (VAO) ofMallakottai Village, falling within the territorial jurisdiction of Singampunari Taluk,approached the respondent police station and lodged a complaint. In the complaint,it was alleged that on the same day, at approximately 09.00 a.m., a catastrophic2/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD).No.10109 of 2025incident occurred within the premises of a private industrial site known as MegaBlue Metals, wherein a sudden and massive rock slide rapidly descended along theslope. The said mishap tragically resulted in the instantaneous death of sixindividuals, all of whom were engaged in stone-breaking operations at the quarrysite. In view of the same, the defacto complainant sought legal action against theproprietor of Mega Blue Metals. Pursuant to a preliminary investigation, therespondent police implicated the petitioners and others, who were employed in thecapacities of manager and site engineer, as accused persons, as reflected in thealteration report. Hence, the case.3. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners would submit that thepetitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as allegedby the prosecution. He would further submit that a false case has been foistedagainst the petitioners. He would further submit that the petitioners are innocentemployees working under the direct supervision and control of A1, who is theproprietor of Mega Blue Metals. The second petitioner has been employed for thepast 3½ years, and the third petitioner for over 5 years. They are neither owners norlessees of the quarry, nor do they hold any independent operational responsibility,apart from following the directions of A1.3/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD).No.10109 of 20254. The learned senior counsel would further submit that Mega Blue Metalsemploys approximately 217 workers and maintains a biometric attendance systemto accurately record employee presence. As per the attendance register andbiometric data, both the second and third petitioners were absent on 20.05.2025, thedate of the unfortunate incident, due to personal exigencies. Thus, their physicalpresence at the site at the time of the occurrence is clearly disproved. He would alsosubmit that the accident was not the result of any negligent or unlawful act on thepart of the petitioners. It was an unfortunate act of God, caused by continuous andheavy rainfall, which led to the unexpected rockslide. The petitioners had no role inthe day-to-day quarrying operations on the said date. Moreover, no quarryingactivity was conducted at the survey number mentioned in the complaint. In fact,the deceased workers had only gone to that location to retrieve equipment. 5. He would further submit that A1 has been operating the quarry for morethan six years with all valid licenses and statutory approvals from the competentauthorities. All required safety norms and insurance coverages were duly adheredto. In fact, A1 has already provided a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as ex-gratiacompensation to the families of each of the deceased workers and also maintains anactive employee insurance policy with New India Assurance Company. He would4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD).No.10109 of 2025also submit that the third petitioner’s marriage is scheduled to be solemnized withinthe next two weeks. Hence, the protection of his personal liberty is of urgentnecessity. He would further submit that there are no previous cases or criminalantecedents against the petitioners. He would also submit that the first and secondpetitioners have been in judicial custody since 22.05.2025, and the third petitionerhas been in custody since 23.05.2025. Hence, he seeks bail.6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that there aretotally six accused persons in this case and the petitioners have been arrayed as A2,A4 and A5. He would further submit that A1 has violated the lease terms byquarrying stones from unauthorized survey fields beyond the approved area anddepth, even after the lease expired in September 2024. The lease permitted quarryingonly up to 47 meters in specific patta lands. Despite this, quarry operationscontinued illegally, leading to a fatal rockslide that killed six workers. Investigationsare underway, including a drone survey ordered by the authorities. He would fairlysubmit that the petitioners failed in discharging their duty to supervise the safetyoperations at the quarry site.7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would fairly submit that, as per5/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD).No.10109 of 2025the order of the District Collector, Sivagangai, in Na.Ka.No.241/Kanimam/2025dated 20.05.2025, it is revealed that the petitioners had violated the stipulated termsand conditions and carried out quarry operations illegally. He would further submitthat, as per the order of the Sub-Collector, Devakottai, in Na.Aa.2/4173/2025 dated09.06.2025, a penalty of Rs.91,00,56,960/- was imposed on A1 on account of the saidillegal quarrying activities. 8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would also submit that the lawprohibits any mineral removal after lease expiry under Rule 36(f) of the Tamil NaduMinor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. A1 is liable under Section 21(1) of the Minesand Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, and relevant rules. Thepolice are legally empowered to register and investigate the case, as affirmed by theHon’ble Division Bench of this Court in Sengol and Others vs. Inspector of Police,reported in 2012 (2) CTC 369. Given that the investigation is at a nascent stage andconsidering the grave nature of the offence, which appears to have been committedin blatant disregard of legal and safety norms, the petitioners are viewed asprincipal offenders. They also have the potential to influence or tamper withevidence and witnesses. Therefore, their plea for bail should be denied, as theirfurther custodial interrogation is crucial to uncover the full extent of the violations6/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD).No.10109 of 2025and prevent further public unrest. He, therefore, opposes the grant of bail to thepetitioners. 9. This Court has heard the learned counsel on both sides and perused thematerials available on record.10. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and thenature of the offence allegedly committed by the petitioners and taking intoconsideration the period of incarceration and taking note of the fact that thepetitioners are only employees without any independent operational authority andalso taking note that there are no previous cases against them, this court is inclinedto grant bail to the petitioners, however, subject to the following conditions: 11. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on theirexecuting a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) withtwo sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate,Singampunari, and on further conditions that:- [a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in thesurety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD).No.10109 of 2025Book to ensure their identity. [b] the petitioners shall furnish their residential address and mobile number tothe learned Judicial Magistrate, Singampunari. If the petitioners changes theirresidential address, they shall report the same to the learned Judicial Magistrate,Singampunari.[c] the petitioners shall appear and sign before the respondent police daily at10.30 a.m. until further orders.[d] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.[e] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either duringinvestigation or trial.[f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/TrialCourt is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordancewith law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners released on bailby the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme8/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD).No.10109 of 2025Court in P.K.Shaji -vs- State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560].[g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered underSection 269 of BNS, 2023. 12. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed subject to theconditions stated supra. sd/- 24/06/2025 / TRUE COPY / 24/06/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. PAL TO1.THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, SINGAMPUNARI.2.DO-THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT.9/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD).No.10109 of 20253.THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, MADURAI.4.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, S.S.KOTTAI POLICE STATION, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT. 5.THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.+1 CC to M/s.A.BALAJI, Advocate ( SR-6675[I] dated 24/06/2025 ) ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.10109 of 2025 Date :24/06/2025 PR/24 .06 .2025 10P/7C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 10/10