In the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil

In the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil.

Present : Thiru S. Arulmurugan, B.A., B.L., Principal Sessions Judge.

Tuesday the 7th day of July, 2020.

Crl.M.P. No. 2427/2020

Jaffline, W/o Karki (A2) : Petitioner /Vs./

Inspector of Police, Nithiravilai Police Station, Crime No. 266/2020 of Nithiravilai Police Station, Rep. by P.P. Nagercoil. : Respondent

This petition is filed by Advocate G. Parimalam, u/s 439 Cr.P.C. praying to grant bail to the petitioner. ORDER

Perused the petition filed by the petitioners through online and written submission of the learned Public Prosecutor.

The petitioners have been charged for the offence u/s 174 Cr.P.C. @ 302

IPC.

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is the wife of the deceased and the 1st accused is the brother and 3rd accused is the father of the petitioner. The petitioner and the deceased had a love marriage and settled at the house of the petitioner at Thuthoor. Thereafter the petitioner left the matrimonial home on 16.05.2020 and on 18.05.2020 the petitioner went to the house of the deceased, beaten with sticks and hands and caused injuries. Hence the charge.

The learned counsel for the petitioner stated in the petition filed through online that the petitioner is innocent and the deceased is said to be a drunkard having strong criminal background in that area and there is no eye witness for the occurrence. The petitioner was arrested and is in judicial custody from 20.05.2020.

The petitioner is a lady having two children aged about 4 and 9 respectively and now the children are alone without any motherhood support. The petitioner has been falsely implicated by the police only to convince the agitated relatives of the deceased. Due to matrimonial fued, the petitioner lost her husband and also her children are deprived of care in a critical time of corona and she is in custory for more than 41 days and this is the 2nd bail petition and the earlier petition in

Crl.M.P.No. 2241/2020 was dismissed by this court on 22.06.2020 and the petitioner is ready to abide by any condition and prayed for bail to the petitioner.

The learned Public Prosecutor submitted the written objection and stated that the present petitioner is A2 and A2 is the wife of the deceased person and due to family dispute, the accused persons had tied both the hands of the deceased person, had brutally assaulted him using stick, iron rod, leg and murdered him. The deceased person hails from Chennai, as and when A2 was studying MBA in Chennai both had fallen in love and had got married and the deceased person is having no criminal background as stated in the petition. Moreover, there are 3 eye witnesses and having said so, the petitioner's plea in last 4 lines of para 7 of the petition is highly condemnable. With the mere reliance to the fact that the deceased person cannot oppose such frivolous pleas, such misleading plea have been made boldly before this court and the same shall not be entertained. It is a very recent case and the accused person has been arrested only on 20.05.2020, therefore it is too early to consider this application. Originally the case was registered u/s 174 of Cr.P.C. and subsequently it was altered to Sec. 302 of IPC. Forensic science report has not yet been received.

Discrete enquiry need to be done and investigation is in premature stage. Earlier application in Crl.M.P. No.2241/2020 has been dismissed only on 22.06.2020 and there is no change in circumstances. Nowadays such crimes have started to raise and it has become unsafe for the husband and considering the nature and gravity of the offence, he has serious objection to grant bail to the petitioner.

Considering the fact that the petitioner/A2 is in judicial custody for the past 47 days and also considering the fact that the alleged occurrence is taken place on 18.05.2020 and by this time, the major portion of the investigation would have been completed and also considering the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/A2 that she is having two children aged about 4 and 9 respectively and during this critical COVID-19 situation, the children need the care and protection of their mother, this court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

In the result, the petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail on her executing a bond for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties each for a likesum to the satisfaction of Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kuzhithurai within one month from today and accordingly this petition is allowed.

Pronounced by me in open court this the 7th day of July, 2020.

Sd/- S. Arulmurugan, Principal Sessions Judge. To The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kuzhithurai. The Inspector of Police, Nithiravilai Police Station. The Superintendent, Sub Jail, Thuckalay. The counsel for the petitioner. In the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil. Present : Thiru S. Arulmurugan, B.A., B.L., Principal Sessions Judge.

Tuesday, the 7th day of July, 2020.

Crl.M.P. No. 2431/2020

Karthick S/o. Murugan .. Petitioner

/Vs./

Sub Inspector of Police, Eraniel Police Station, Crime No.504/2020 of Eraniel Police Station. Rep. by P.P. Nagercoil. .. Respondent

This petition is filed by Advocate Y. Nalany Chellam, u/s 438 Cr.P.C., praying to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. ORDER

Perused the petition filed through online and written submission of the learned Public Prosecutor.

The petitioner/accused has been charged for the offences u/s 294(b), 341 and 395 of IPC.

The case of prosecution is that on 14.06.2020 at about 7.30 P.M., while the informant was going near Asarivilai Road at Arasamudu, to give Rs.60,000/- for purchased bricks, the accused restrained the informant and uttere filthy words and pushed him down from the bike and one of the accused taken his bike key and also taken Rs.60,000/- which was kept in his shirt pocket and threatened him. Hence the charge.

The learned counsel for the petitioner stated in the petition filed through online that the confession given by arrested accused, the name of the petitioner has been implicated and as per the confession, Rs.5,000/- has been recovered from them and remaining Rs.55,000/- is with one of the other absconding accused and the petitioner has not involved in the theft and he is an ill health person and he is innocent and he is in no way connected with the commission of the offence and the petitioner is ready to abide by any condition and prayed for anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

It is stated in the written submission of the learned Public Prosecutor that the accused persons had restrained the defacto complainant, used foul language, threatened, assaulted and had robbed Rs.60,000/- and the property has not yet been recovered and since it is a case of 395 IPC, custodial interrogation is essential and he has serious objection to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Considering the grievous nature of the offences alleged to be committed by the petitioner/Accused that he robbed Rs.60,000/- from the defacto complainant and also considering the objection of the learned Public Prosecutor that the property is yet to be recovered and custodial interrogation is essential, this court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Hence, this petition is dismissed.

In the result, this petition is dismissed.

Pronounced by me in open court this the 7th day of July, 2020.

Sd/- S.Arulmurugan Principal Sessions Judge.

In the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil.

Present : Thiru S. Arulmurugan, B.A., B.L., Principal Sessions Judge.

Tuesday, the 7th day of July, 2020.

Crl.M.P. No.2432/2020

Suyambulingam, S/o. Chelliah Nadar, (A1) ..Petitioner

/Vs./

Sub Inspector of Police, Eathomozhy Police Station, Crime No. 5/2020 of Eathomozhy Police Station, Rep. by P.P. Nagercoil. .. Respondent

This petition is filed by Advocate Thiru C. Saravanan, u/s 438 Cr.P.C., praying to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

ORDER

Perused the petition filed through online and written objection submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor.

The petitioner has been charged for the offence u/s 294(b), 323, 506(ii) of IPC

The case of prosecution is that on 19.01.2020 at about 8.00 P.M., the accused persons abused the defacto complainant in filthy language and assaulted and threatened him. Hence the charge.

The learned counsel for the petitioner stated in the petition filed thorugh online that it is a false case and the injured person was not admitted in the hospital and this is the 3rd application and 2nd bail application in Crl.M.P. No.2199/2020 was dismissed on 23.06.2020 and the petitioner is ready to abide by any condition and prayed for anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

The learned Public Prosecutor stated in the written objection that the present petitioner is A1 and he is having specific overt act of brutally assaulting the defacto complainant in his head using a stick. A1 and A2 are having 6 and 7 previous cases respectively and the earlier application in Crl.M.P. No.2199/2020 has been dismissed only on 23.06.2020 and there is no change in circumstances. Even though, the injured has been discharged from hospital, considering the nature and gravity of occurrence and the antecedents of the accused person, he has serious objection to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Considering the objection of the learned Public Prosecutor that A1 is having 6 previous cases and the earlier application for anticipatory bail was dismissed on 23.06.2020 in Crl.M.P. No.2199/2020 and the there is no change in circumstances and also considering the antecedents of the petitioner/A1, this court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Hence this petition is dismissed.

In the result, this petition is dismissed.

Pronounced by me in open court this the 7th day of July, 2020.

Sd/- S.Arulmurugan, Principal Sessions Judge.

In the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil. Present : Thiru S. Arulmurugan, B.A., B.L., Principal Sessions Judge.

Tuesday, the 7th day of July, 2020.

Crl.M.P. No. 2433/2020

P. Ajikumar S/o. Packiyaraj .. Petitioner

/Vs./

Sub Inspector of Police, Arumanai Police Station, Crime No.386/2020 of Arumanai Police Station. Rep. by P.P. Nagercoil. .. Respondent

This petition is filed by Advocate R. Godwin Kumar, u/s 438 Cr.P.C., praying to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. ORDER

Perused the petition filed through online and written submission of the learned Public Prosecutor.

The petitioner/accused has been charged for the offences u/s 294(b), 324 and 506(ii) of IPC.

The case of prosecution is that on 21.06.2020 at about 1.30 P.M., while the defacto complainant done his welding work in front of his house, the petitioner quarreled with him for electric power problem in his house and thrown away the welding machine with using filthy language and assaulted the defacto complainant and his wife and also threatened them. Hence the charge.

The learned counsel for the petitioner stated in the petition filed through online that the petitioner has not committed any offence and the defacto complainant conduct a welding shop in his house without obtaining permission from the concerned authorities and sound pollution and loud noise from the said shop and since the the petitioner's mother is very sick and bedridden, he lodged a complaint against the defacto complainant's welding shop and hence, the defacto complainant lodged a false complaint against the petitioner and the investigation of the case is almost over and the petitioner is ready to abide by any condition and prayed for anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

It is stated in the written submission of the learned Public Prosecutor that the operative portion in the FIR are as follows:

“vjpw;F ,e;j neuj;jpy; welding ntiy ghh;f;fpwha;/ v';fSf;F fuz;l; gpur;rpidahf cs;sJ vd Twpf;bfhz;L. Welding Machine -I J}f;fp tPrpdhd;.” There after the accused person had used foul language, threatened, and had assaulted the de facto complainant using hand. As and when the de facto complainant’s wife tried to defend the de facto complainant, the accused person had pelted brick on her head. Also, due to the same the defacto complainant had sustained injury near his eyebrow and the injured person was treated as OP and he has objection to release the petitioner.

Considering the nature of the offence alleged to be committed by the petitioner/Accused and also considering the reply of the learned Public Prosecutor that the injured person was treated as OP, this court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with conditions.

In the result in the event of arrest or on his appearing before the court concerned the petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on anticipatory bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties each for a likesum to the satisfaction of Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kuzhithurai subject to the following conditions:-

1. The petitioner shall appear before the court concerned within 30 days from

today without fail .

2. After release, the petitioner shall appear and sign before the respondent police

daily at 10.00 A.M. until further orders.

3. The petitioner shall also make himself available before the respondent as and

when required.

4. The petitioner shall not tamper with the witnesses or in any manner interfere

with or put obstacle to the smooth progress of investigation.

5. The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdictional police limit without prior

permission.

If there is any violation of condition, the Investigation Officer is with in his discretion to approach the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate for cancellation of bail even though bail granted by the Sessions Court as per the ruling of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in P.K.Shaji /Vs./ State of Kerala, (2005) AIR

S.C.W. 5560.

Pronounced by me in open court this the 7th day of July, 2020.

Sd/- S.Arulmurugan Principal Sessions Judge.

To The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kuzhithurai. The Sub Inspector of Police, Arumanai Police Station. The counsel for the petitioner.

In the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil.

Present : Thiru S. Arulmurugan, B.A., B.L., Principal Sessions Judge.

Tuesday, the 7th day of July, 2020.

Crl.M.P. No. 2434/2020

Surya, S/o Suyambukumar .. Petitioner

/Vs./ Sub Inspector of Police, Manavalakurichy Police Station, Crime No. 235/2020 of Manavalakurichy Police Station. Rep. by P.P. Nagercoil. .. Respondent

This petition is filed by Advocate Thiru A.K.E. Appaji, u/s 438 Cr.P.C., praying to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. ORDER

Perused the petition filed through online and written submission submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor.

The petitioner has been charged for the offence u/s 294(b), 435 and

506(i) IPC.

The case of prosecution is that the informant and the petitioner are father and son, on 02.06.2020 at about 4.00 P.M. when the informant warned the petitioner not to drink alcohol, so the petitioner got angry, threatened the informant and set fire to the informant's bike worth about Rs.30,000/-. Hence the charge.

The learned counsel for the petitioner stated in the petition filed through online that the bike set in fire is in the name of the petitioner and there is difference of opinion between the father and son and no one is injured in the occurrence and he has been wrongly implicated in this case and this is the 2nd application and the earlier application in Crl.M.P. No.2137/2020 was dismissed on 19.06.2020 and he is ready to abide by any condition and prayed for anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

The learned Public Prosecutor stated in the written objection that the accused person is none other than the son of defacto complainant. Just because the defacto complainant warned the accused person for consuming alcohol with the sale proceeds of household articles, the accused person had used foul language, threatened and had set fire to the de facto complainant’s bike and caused damage worth

Rs.30,000/-. Nowadays crimes by the sons as against the father/family members are increasing and now that the aged parents are under the fear of their own wards. The same is highly condemnable. In the event of allowing this application, the accused person will be encouraged to again engage in such activities. Therefore, considering the welfare of the accused person and his family members, dismissal of this petition will be a good reformative punishment. Earlier application in Crl.M.P. No.2137/2020 has been dismissed only on 19.06.2020 and there is no change in circumstances.

Considering the nature of offence and the welfare of the accused person and his family members, he has serious serious objection to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Considering the nature of the offence alleged to be committed by the petitioner/Accused and also considering the fact that the petitioner/accused is the son of the defacto complainant and the bike which was damaged in the occurrence was stands in the name of the petitioner/accused, this court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with conditions. In the result in the event of arrest or on his appearing before the court concerned the petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on anticipatory bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties each for a likesum to the satisfaction of Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel subject to the following conditions:-

1. The petitioner shall appear before the court concerned within 30 days from

today without fail .

2. After release, the petitioner shall appear and sign before the respondent police

daily at 10.00 A.M. until further orders.

3. The petitioner shall also make himself available before the respondent as and

when required.

4. The petitioner shall not tamper with the witnesses or in any manner interfere

with or put obstacle to the smooth progress of investigation.

5. The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdictional police limit without prior

permission.

Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in P.K.Shaji /Vs./ State of Kerala, (2005) AIR

S.C.W. 5560.

Pronounced by me in open court this the 7th day of July, 2020.

Sd/- S.Arulmurugan Principal Sessions Judge. To The Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel. The Sub Inspector of Police, Manavalakurichy Police Station. The counsel for the petitioner.

In the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil. Present : Thiru S. Arulmurugan, B.A., B.L., Principal Sessions Judge. Tuesday, the 7th day of July, 2020. Crl.M.P. No. 2435/2020

1. Shalvin S/o. Chelladurai (A1) 2. Subin S/o. Lawrence (A2) 3. Thanka Lekshmi Paul Nadar W/o. Deva Raveendran @ Deva Raveenthra Kumar (A4) : Petitioners /Vs./ Sub Inspector of Police, Thuckalay Police Station, Crime No.633/2020 of Thuckalay Police Station, Rep. by P.P. Nagercoil. : Respondent

This petition is filed by Advocate Thiru M. Beslin Jagadheese, u/s 438 Cr.P.C. praying to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. ORDER Perused the petition filed through online and written submission of the learned Public Prosecutor.

The petitioners/accused have been charged for the offences u/s 379 of

IPC.

The case of the prosecution is that on 21.05.2020, at about 5.30 P.M., the petitioners illegally transported red sand without proper permission from the authorities concerned. Hence the charge.

The learned counsel for the petitioners stated in the petition filed through online that the informant seized the vehicle and there was no such a red sand transported as alleged by the prosecution and after the lockdown, the old dilapidated house of the private party was broken and the waste sand and materials kept in the vehicle in order to clear off from the house site and the petitioners are innocent and they have not involved in any offence and the earlier two applications in Crl.M.P.

2027/2020 and 2232/2020 were dismissed by this court on 12.06.2020 and

24.06.2020 respectively on the ground that the investigation is under preliminary stage and now almost part of investigation is completed and the petitioners are ready to abide any condition and prayed for anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

In the written submission, the learned Public Prosecutor stated that the present petitioners are A1, A2 and A4 and A1 had involved in illicit transportation of 1 unit of red sand and and other accused persons acted as escorts and the earlier application has been dismissed on 24.06.2020 and there is no change in circumstances. It is pertinent to take note of one such case of prayer for Anticipatory bail in Mines and Minerals Act. In a recent judgement pronounced by the

Honourable Madurai High Court on 30.06.2020 in Crl.OP(MD) No.6689 of 2020, the court had made the petitioner to deposit Rs.80,000/- for 1-unit river sand.

In order to curb such activities, the above said precedent may be considered and cost may be imposed on the present petitioner and he has serious objection to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

Considering the nature of the offences alleged to be committed by the petitioners/A1, A2 and A4 and also considering the fact that the alleged occurrence was taken place on 21.05.2020 and by this time, the investigation would have been completed, this court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with conditions.

In the result in the event of arrest or on their appearing before the court concerned the petitioners are ordered to be enlarged on anticipatory bail on their executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties each for a likesum to the satisfaction of Judicial Magistrate No.I, Padmanabhapuram subject to the following conditions:-

1. The petitioners shall appear before the court concerned within 30 days from

today without fail .

2. After release, the petitioners shall appear and sign before the respondent

police daily at 10.00 A.M. until further orders.

3. The petitioners shall also make themselves available before the respondent as

and when required.

4. The petitioners shall not tamper with the witnesses or in any manner interfere

with or put obstacle to the smooth progress of investigation.

5. The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdictional police limit without prior

permission.

Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in P.K.Shaji /Vs./ State of Kerala, (2005) AIR

S.C.W. 5560.

Pronounced by me in open court this the 7th day of July, 2020.

Sd/- S.Arulmurugan Principal Sessions Judge.

To The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Padmanabhapuram. The Sub Inspector of Police, Thuckalay Police Station. The counsel for the petitioners.

In the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil.

Present : Thiru S. Arulmurugan, B.A., B.L., Principal Sessions Judge.

Tuesday, the 7th day of July, 2020.

Crl.M.P. No. 2436/2020

Anish S/o. Dhasan .. Petitioner

/Vs./

Sub Inspector of Police, Boothapandy Police Station, Crime No.71/2020 of Boothapandy Police Station. Rep. by P.P. Nagercoil. .. Respondent

This petition is filed by Advocate Thiru P. Palavesamuthu, u/s 438 Cr.P.C., praying to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. ORDER

Perused the petition filed through online and written submission of the learned Public Prosecutor.

The petitioner/accused has been charged for the offences u/s 447, 294(b),

323 and 506(i) of IPC and Section 4 of TNPHW Act, 2002.

The case of prosecution is that on 20.03.2020 at about 7.30 P.M., the petitioner trespassed into the house of the informant, used filthy language against her and hit her with his leg and assaulted her with wooden stick and threatened her.

Hence the charge.

The learned counsel for the petitioner stated in the petition filed through online that the injured was discharged from the hospital on 25.03.2020 and there is no previous case against the petitioner and the petitioner is ready to abide by any condition and prayed for anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

It is stated in the written submission of the learned Public Prosecutor that due to wordly quarrel between the defacto complainant and the accused person’s wife, the accused person had used foul language, threatened, assaulted the de facto complainant in her lower abdomen using leg, punched in her back and had also assaulted in her finger using a stick and the injured person has been discharged from hospital.

Considering the nature of the offence alleged to be committed by the petitioner/Accused and also considering the reply of the learned Public Prosecutor that the injured person has been discharged from the hospita, this court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with conditions.

In the result in the event of arrest or on his appearing before the court concerned the petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on anticipatory bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties each for a likesum to the satisfaction of Judicial Magistrate, Boothapandy subject to the following conditions:-

1. The petitioner shall appear before the court concerned within 30 days from

today without fail .

2. After release, the petitioner shall appear and sign before the respondent police

daily at 10.00 A.M. until further orders.

3. The petitioner shall also make himself available before the respondent as and

when required.

4. The petitioner shall not tamper with the witnesses or in any manner interfere with or put obstacle to the smooth progress of investigation.

5. The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdictional police limit without prior

permission.

Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in P.K.Shaji /Vs./ State of Kerala, (2005) AIR

S.C.W. 5560.

Pronounced by me in open court this the 7th day of July, 2020.

Sd/- S.Arulmurugan Principal Sessions Judge.

To The Judicial Magistrate, Boothapandy. The Sub Inspector of Police, Boothapandy Police Station. The counsel for the petitioner. In the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil.

Present : Thiru S. Arulmurugan, B.A., B.L., Principal Sessions Judge.

Tuesday, the 7th day of July, 2020.

Crl.M.P. Nos. 2437, 2471 and 2473/2020

S. Sugesh @ Suhesh S/o. C. Subash (A2) .. Petitioner in Crl.M.P. No.2437/2020 Rajan S/o. Selvaraj (A3) .. Petitioner in Crl.M.P. No.2471/2020 Ganesh S/o. Sree Balan (A1) .. Petitioner in Crl.M.P. No.2473/2020

/Vs./

Sub Inspector of Police, Boothapandy Police Station, Crime No.265/2020 of Boothapandy Police Station. Rep. by P.P. Nagercoil. .. Respondent

These three petitions are filed by Advocate Tvl. R. Ashok Chandra, S.Jany and T.M. Sree Kumar respectively, u/s 438 Cr.P.C., praying to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner in all the three petitions. ORDER

Perused the petition filed through online and written submission of the learned Public Prosecutor.

The petitioners/accused have been charged for the offences u/s 379 of

IPC and Section 4(1)(1A), 21(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development and

Regulation) Act, 1957.

The case of prosecution is that on 24.06.2020 at about 4.00 A.M., the accused persons illegally transported river sand in a tempo bearing Regn. No.TN 72

BJ 0468 without getting permission from the government. Hence the charge. The learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.M.P. No.2437/2020 stated in the petition filed through online that the petitioner is A2 and the property including the tempo has been recovered and the petitioner is innocent and has nothing to do with the case and the petitioner is ready to abide by any condition and prayed for anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

The learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.M.P. No.2471/2020 and

2473/2020 stated in the petitions that the petitioners/A3 and A1 are in no way connected with the alleged occurrence and the A3 is the owner of the vehicle bearing

Regn. No.TN 72 BJ 0468 and A1 is the driver of the said vehicle and the respondent police without conducting proper enquiry, implicated them as accused in this case and the the petitioners are ready to abide by any condition and prayed for anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

It is stated in the written submission of the learned Public Prosecutor that all these three petitions are for different accused persons involved in same case and the accused persons had involved in illicit transportation of 1 unit river sand in a

Tipper and it is a very recent case registered on 24.06.2020, and it is too early to consider this application and no accused persons have been arrested so far and investigation is in pre-mature stage and A1 is having 4 previous cases of similar nature, and A3 is having 2 previous cases. It is pertinent to take note of one such case of prayer for AB in Mines and Minerals Act. In a recent judgement pronounced by the Honourable Madurai High Court on 30.06.2020 in Crl.OP(MD) No.6689 of

2020, the court had made the petitioner to deposit Rs.80,000/- for 1-unit river sand.

Considering the nature of the offence alleged to be committed by the petitioners/A2, A3 and A1 that they involved in illicit transportation of one unit of river sand and also considering the objection of the learned Public Prosecutor that the investigation is in premature stage and A1 is having 4 previous cases on similar nature and A3 is having 2 previous cases, this court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner in all the three petitions. Hence, all the three petitions are dismissed.

In the result, all the three petitions are dismissed.

Pronounced by me in open court this the 7th day of July, 2020.

Sd/- S.Arulmurugan Principal Sessions Judge.

In the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil.

Present : Thiru S. Arulmurugan, B.A., B.L., Principal Sessions Judge.

Tuesday, the 7th day of July, 2020.

Crl.M.P. No. 2439/2020

1. Edwin Sam S/o. Thankaiyan (A1) 2. Selvakumar S/o. Thankappan(A2) 3. A.T. Ajith Kumar S/o. Arulraj (A3) : Petitioners /Vs./ Sub Inspector of Police, Puthukadai Police Station, Crime No.68/2020 of Puthukadai Police Station, Rep. by P.P. Nagercoil. : Respondent

This petition is filed by Advocate Thiru N. Chellappan, u/s 438 Cr.P.C. praying to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

ORDER Perused the petition filed through online and written submission of the learned Public Prosecutor.

The petitioners/accused have been charged for the offences u/s 379 of

IPC and Section 21(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act,

1957.

The case of the prosecution is that on 14.03.2020, at about 10.00 A.M., while the Revenue Inspector was on vehicle check up duty at Sadaiyankuzhi, he intercepted the vehicles bearing Regn. No.TN 75 V 6158 Tipper lorry, TN 75 AE

7021 Mini tempo lorry and TN 75 W 3412 Mini tempo, and the drivers left the vehicles and escaped from the scene place and when he checked the vehicle, found that the said vehicles were containing gravel stones, M-sand and jally stones respectively without any valid permit. Hence the charge.

The learned counsel for the petitioners stated in the petition filed through online that the investigation is almost over and the vehicles involved have been seized and this is the 2nd application and the earlier application in Crl.M.P.

1253/2020 was dismissed by this court on 21.03.2020 on the ground that the investigation was not over and this case has been foisted only for the statistical purpose and the petitioners are ready to abide any condition and prayed for anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

In the written submission, the learned Public Prosecutor stated that the present petitioners are A1 to A3 and the accused persons had involved in illicit transportation of 5 units of blue metal, 1 unit of M-sand and 1 unit of gravel and no accused persons have been arrested so far and the investigation is in premature stage.

It is pertinent to take note of one such case of prayer for AB in Mines and Minerals

Act. In a recent judgement pronounced by the Honourable Madurai High Court on

30.06.2020 in Crl.OP(MD) No.6689 of 2020, the court had made the petitioner to deposit Rs.80,000/- for 1-unit river sand. In order to curb such activities, the above said precedent may be considered and cost may be imposed on the present petitioners and he has serious objection to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

Considering the nature of the offences alleged to be committed by the petitioners/A1 to A3 that they involved in illicit transportation of 5 units of blue metal, 1 unit of M-sand and 1 unit of gravel and also considering the objection of the learned Public Prosecutor that the investigation is in premature stage, this court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Hence, this petition is dismissed.

In the result, this petition is dismissed.

Pronounced by me in open court this the 7th day of July, 2020.

Sd/- S.Arulmurugan Principal Sessions Judge.

In the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil.

Present : Thiru S. Arulmurugan, B.A., B.L., Principal Sessions Judge.

Tuesday, the 7th day of July, 2020.

Crl.M.P. No. 2441/2020

1. Antony Arockia Suresh @ Suresh S/o. Stephen (A1) 2. Jegan Babu @ Jegan S/o. Martin (A2) 3. Antony Rinson @ Jijo S/o. Christhudhas (A3) : Petitioners /Vs./ Sub Inspector of Police, Puthukadai Police Station, Crime No.319/2020 of Puthukadai Police Station, Rep. by P.P. Nagercoil. : Respondent

This petition is filed by Advocate Thiru D. Bruno Ranjith, u/s 438

Cr.P.C. praying to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

ORDER Perused the petition and written submission of the learned Public

Prosecutor.

The petitioners/accused have been charged for the offences u/s 147, 341,

294(b), 323 and 506(i) of IPC.

The case of the prosecution is that on 24.06.2020, at about 5.45 A.M., while the defacto complainant went to Keelakulam Church Junction, the petitioners used filthy language against him and assaulted and threatened him. Hence the charge.

The learned counsel for the petitioners stated in the petition that the case has been falsely registered against the petitioners and if the petition is not allowed, the petitioners may put into irreparable loss and damaged and the petitioners are ready to abide any condition and prayed for anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

In the written submission, the learned Public Prosecutor stated that due to previous enmity, the accused persons had restrained the defacto complainant, threatened, used foul language and had also assaulted him using hand and the injured person has been discharged from the hospital.

Considering the nature of the offences alleged to be committed by the petitioners/A1 to A3 and also considering the reply of the learned Public Prosecutor that the injured person has been discharged from the hospital, this court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with conditions.

In the result in the event of arrest or on their appearing before the court concerned the petitioners are ordered to be enlarged on anticipatory bail on their executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties each for a likesum to the satisfaction of Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kuzhithurai subject to the following conditions:-

1. The petitioners shall appear before the court concerned within 30 days from

today without fail .

2. After release, the petitioners shall appear and sign before the respondent

police daily at 10.00 A.M. until further orders.

3. The petitioners shall also make themselves available before the respondent as

and when required.

4. The petitioners shall not tamper with the witnesses or in any manner interfere with or put obstacle to the smooth progress of investigation.

5. The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdictional police limit without prior

permission.

Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in P.K.Shaji /Vs./ State of Kerala, (2005) AIR

S.C.W. 5560.

Pronounced by me in open court this the 7th day of July, 2020.

Sd/- S.Arulmurugan Principal Sessions Judge.

To The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kuzhithurai. The Sub Inspector of Police, Puthukadai Police Station. The counsel for the petitioners.

In the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil.

Present : Thiru S. Arulmurugan, B.A., B.L., Principal Sessions Judge.

Tuesday, the 7th day of July, 2020.

Crl.M.P. Nos. 2442/2020 and 2443/2020

Ajis S/o. Sahayaraj .. Petitioner in Crl.M.P. No.2442/2020

Sahaya Naveen Nisanth S/o. Basker .. Petitioner in Crl.M.P. No.2443/2020

/Vs./

Sub Inspector of Police, Suchindrum Police Station, Crime No.597/2020 of Suchindrum Police Station, Rep. by P.P. Nagercoil. .. Respondent

These two petitions are filed by Advocate Tvl. U.A. Perumal and C. Murugesan respectively, u/s 438 Cr.P.C., praying to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner in both the petitions. COMMON ORDER

Perused the petitions and written submission submitted by the learned

Public Prosecutor.

These two petitions are filed by different accused, but in the same crime number.

The petitioners have been charged for the offence u/s 457 and 380 of

IPC.

The learned counsel for the petitioner in both the petitions stated in the petitions that the petitioners are innocent and they are in no way connected with the alleged offence and this is the 2nd application and the earlier applications in Crl.M.P.

Nos.2272 and 2273/2020 were dismissed on 26.06.2020 and the petitioners are ready to abide by any condition and prayed for anticipatory bail to the petitioner in both the petitions.

The learned Public Prosecutor stated in the written objection that the both these petitions are for different accused persons involved in same case and the accused persons have involved in committing theft of 4 mobile phones, 5 earphones,

7 memory cards and cash Rs.500/- (total worth of Rs.6,500/-). It is a very recent occurrence i.e. took place on 11.06.2020, and it is too early to entertain this application and the property has not yet been recovered. Earlier application in

Crl.M.P Nos.2272 and 2273/2020 were dismissed on 25.06.2020 and there is no change in circumstances. Nowadays such crimes are increasing, in order to curtail the same discrete enquiry need to be conducted. Hence the custodial interrogation of the accused person is highly essential and such activities are highly condemnable and therefore, he has serious objection to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

Considering the offences alleged to be committed by the petitioners/accused that they committed theft of 4 mobile phones, 5 earphones, 7 memory cards and cash of Rs.500/- and also considering the objection of the learned

Public Prosecutor that the properties are yet to be recovered and the earlier applications for anticipatory bail was dismissed on 25.06.2020 in Crl.M.P.

No.2272/2020 and 2273/2020 and there is no change in circumstances and also the custodial interrogation of the accused is essential this court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner in both the petitions. Hence, both the petitions are dismissed.

In the result, both the petitions are dismissed.

Pronounced by me in open court this the 7h day of July, 2020.

Sd/- S. Arulmurugan, Principal Sessions Judge.

In the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil.

Present : Thiru S. Arulmurugan, B.A., B.L., Principal Sessions Judge.

Tuesday, the 7th day of July, 2020.

Crl.M.P. Nos. 2442/2020 and 2443/2020

Ajis S/o. Sahayaraj .. Petitioner in Crl.M.P. No.2442/2020

Sahaya Naveen Nisanth S/o. Basker .. Petitioner in Crl.M.P. No.2443/2020

/Vs./

Sub Inspector of Police, Suchindrum Police Station, Crime No.597/2020 of Suchindrum Police Station, Rep. by P.P. Nagercoil. .. Respondent

These two petitions are filed by Advocate Tvl. U.A. Perumal and C. Murugesan respectively, u/s 438 Cr.P.C., praying to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner in both the petitions. COMMON ORDER

Perused the petitions and written submission submitted by the learned

Public Prosecutor.

These two petitions are filed by different accused, but in the same crime number.

The petitioners have been charged for the offence u/s 457 and 380 of

IPC.

Nos.2272 and 2273/2020 were dismissed on 26.06.2020 and the petitioners are ready to abide by any condition and prayed for anticipatory bail to the petitioner in both the petitions.

Public Prosecutor that the properties are yet to be recovered and the earlier applications for anticipatory bail was dismissed on 25.06.2020 in Crl.M.P.

In the result, both the petitions are dismissed.

Pronounced by me in open court this the 7h day of July, 2020.

Sd/- S. Arulmurugan, Principal Sessions Judge.

In the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil. Present : Thiru S. Arulmurugan, B.A., B.L., Principal Sessions Judge.

Tuesday, the 7th day of July, 2020.

Crl.M.P. No. 2444/2020

Vijayakumar S/o. Krishnapillai (A2) .. Petitioner

/Vs./

Sub Inspector of Police, Kollencode Police Station, Crime No.656/2020 of Kollencode Police Station. Rep. by P.P. Nagercoil. .. Respondent

This petition is filed by Advocate Thiru R.P. Rajaiah, u/s 438 Cr.P.C., praying to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. ORDER

Perused the petition and written submission of the learned Public

Prosecutor.

The petitioner/accused has been charged for the offences u/s 427 and

109 of IPC and Section 3(1) of Prevention of Public Property Loss and Damages

Act, 1984.

The case of prosecution is that on 23.06.2020 at about 2.30 P.M., the petitioner along with other accused trespassed into the poramboke water canal and dug the sand and it was heaped by Hitachi engine. Hence the charge.

The learned counsel for the petitioner stated in the petition that the petitioner has not committed any offence, in fact the villagers formed a road in wihc a poramboke land with a canal said to have encroached and the petitioner is innocent and the petitioner was included saying that at the instigation of the petitioner and A3, the work has been done and it is purely wrong and he is a social worker and the investigation of the case is almost over and the petitioner is ready to abide by any condition and prayed for anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

It is stated in the written submission of the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner is A2 and the accused persons had filled the sand and had damaged the water source in the government land and he has objection to release the petitioner.

Considering the nature of the offence alleged to be committed by the petitioner/A2 and also considering the other facts and circumstances of the case, this court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with conditions.

In the result in the event of arrest or on his appearing before the court concerned the petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on anticipatory bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties each for a likesum to the satisfaction of Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kuzhithurai subject to the following conditions:-

1. The petitioner shall appear before the court concerned within 30 days from

today without fail .

2. After release, the petitioner shall appear and sign before the respondent police

daily at 10.00 A.M. until further orders.

3. The petitioner shall also make himself available before the respondent as and

when required.

4. The petitioner shall not tamper with the witnesses or in any manner interfere

with or put obstacle to the smooth progress of investigation. 5. The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdictional police limit without prior

permission.

Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in P.K.Shaji /Vs./ State of Kerala, (2005) AIR

S.C.W. 5560.

Pronounced by me in open court this the 7th day of July, 2020.

Sd/- S.Arulmurugan Principal Sessions Judge.

To The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kuzhithurai. The Sub Inspector of Police, Kollencode Police Station. The counsel for the petitioner. In the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil. Present : Thiru S. Arulmurugan, B.A., B.L., Principal Sessions Judge.

Tuesday, the 7th day of July, 2020.

Crl.M.P. No. 2446/2020

S. Mayakrishnan S/o. Sudalaimani (A3) .. Petitioner

/Vs./

Forest Range Officer, Boothapandy Forest Range, Crime No.15/2020 of Boothapandy Forest Range. Rep. by Spl. P.P. Nagercoil. .. Respondent

This petition is filed by Advocate Thiru K. Subhakaravel, u/s 438 Cr.P.C., praying to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. ORDER

Perused the petition and written submission of the learned Special

Public Prosecutor (Forest Cases).

The petitioner/accused has been charged for the offences u/s 9, 39, 51 and 52 of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.

The case of prosecution is that the accused persons hunted some wild animals and cooked and eaten them. Hence the charge.

It is stated in the petition that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence andhe has not committed any offence as alleged by the forest officials and he has been implicated as 3rd accused based on the confession statement of 1st accused and there is no specific overt act attributed against the petitioner and and the accused 1 and 2 were arrested on 23.05.2020 and remanded them to judicial custody and subsequently they have been released on bail by the Forest Court on

26.06.2020 in Crl.M.P. No.46/2020 and the 4th accused has been released on bail by the Forest court on 25.06.2020 in Crl.M.P. No.44/2020 and the petitioner is ready to abide by any condition and prayed for anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

It is stated in the written submission of the learned Special Public

Prosecutor (Forest Cases) that the petitioner and others trespassed into the wildlife sanctuary and hunted a palm civet and cooked it on 19.03.2020 and hunted an Indian flapshell turtle – Lissemys punctata and cooked it on 12.10.2019 and the A1 has recording video of the above said occurrences in his android phone and it was seized by the forest officials. The occurrence places are declared as Wildlife Sanctuary, reserved forest, regionally biodiversity and also Eco sensitive zone. The 1st accused confessed the occurrence and the investigation part is not yet completed and it is a recent occurrence and if the petitioner is arrested, the prosecution will find out his earlier occurrences, which were involved by him and if the petition is allowed, it will be affected the investigation and also to encourage the local people to hunt wild animals illegally in the wildlife sanctuary and he has serious objection to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Considering the nature of the offences alleged to be committed by the petitioner/A3 the he trespassed into the wildlife sanctuary and hunted the animals, which are declared as rarest schedule animal in the Wildlife Protection Act and also considering the objection of the learned Special Public Prosecutor that the investigation part is yet to be completed and the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is essential to find out the earlier occurrences, this court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Hence the petition is dismissed.

In the result, this petition is dismissed.

Pronounced by me in open court this the 7th day of July, 2020.

Sd/- S.Arulmurugan Principal Sessions Judge.

In the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil.

Present : Thiru S. Arulmurugan, B.A., B.L., Principal Sessions Judge.

Tuesday, the 7th day of July, 2020.

Crl.M.P. Nos. 2437, 2471 and 2473/2020

/Vs./

Sub Inspector of Police, Boothapandy Police Station, Crime No.265/2020 of Boothapandy Police Station. Rep. by P.P. Nagercoil. .. Respondent

Perused the petition filed through online and written submission of the learned Public Prosecutor.

The petitioners/accused have been charged for the offences u/s 379 of

IPC and Section 4(1)(1A), 21(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development and

Regulation) Act, 1957.

The case of prosecution is that on 24.06.2020 at about 4.00 A.M., the accused persons illegally transported river sand in a tempo bearing Regn. No.TN 72

The learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.M.P. No.2471/2020 and

2473/2020 stated in the petitions that the petitioners/A3 and A1 are in no way connected with the alleged occurrence and the A3 is the owner of the vehicle bearing

2020, the court had made the petitioner to deposit Rs.80,000/- for 1-unit river sand.

In the result, all the three petitions are dismissed.

Pronounced by me in open court this the 7th day of July, 2020.

Sd/- S.Arulmurugan Principal Sessions Judge.

In the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil.

Present : Thiru S. Arulmurugan, B.A., B.L., Principal Sessions Judge.

Tuesday, the 7th day of July, 2020.

Crl.M.P. Nos. 2437, 2471 and 2473/2020

/Vs./

Sub Inspector of Police, Boothapandy Police Station, Crime No.265/2020 of Boothapandy Police Station. Rep. by P.P. Nagercoil. .. Respondent

Perused the petition filed through online and written submission of the learned Public Prosecutor.

The petitioners/accused have been charged for the offences u/s 379 of

IPC and Section 4(1)(1A), 21(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development and

Regulation) Act, 1957.

The case of prosecution is that on 24.06.2020 at about 4.00 A.M., the accused persons illegally transported river sand in a tempo bearing Regn. No.TN 72

The learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.M.P. No.2471/2020 and

2473/2020 stated in the petitions that the petitioners/A3 and A1 are in no way connected with the alleged occurrence and the A3 is the owner of the vehicle bearing

2020, the court had made the petitioner to deposit Rs.80,000/- for 1-unit river sand.

In the result, all the three petitions are dismissed.

Pronounced by me in open court this the 7th day of July, 2020.

Sd/- S.Arulmurugan Principal Sessions Judge.