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. Thursday the 4th day of June, 2020. Crl.M.P. No.1822/2020

1. Thangalekshmy, W/o. Rajappa (A2) 2. Rajesh, S/o Rajappa (A3) .. Petitioners

/Vs./ Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Kanyakumari, Crime No.6/2017 of All Women Police Station, Kanyakumari, Rep. by P.P. Nagercoil. .. Respondent

This petition is filed by Advocate Thiru J. Parthasarathy, praying to extend the time to appear before the court concerned. ORDER

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

Offence alleged u/s 498(A), 406, 506(i) of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act, 1961

The petitioners were granted anticipatory bail as per order in

Crl.M.P.No.3459/2019, dated 13.10.2017 with condition that the petitioner should appear before the court concerned within a period of 15 days from the date of order.

The learned counsel for the petitioners stated in the petition filed through online that due to non production of sureties, the petitioners were unable to appear before the court concerned within the stipulated time and prayed for extension of extension of time to appear.

The learned Public Prosecutor stated in the written submission that it is a mere application for extension of time and he has no objection to extend the time to appear.

Considering the reasons stated in the petition, this court is inclined to extend one month time and this court directs the petitioners to appear before the court concerned within one month from today, failing which the anticipatory bail stands automatically cancelled and accordingly this petition is allowed.

Pronounced by me in open court this the 4th day of June, 2020.

Sd/- S. Arulmurugan, Principal Sessions Judge. To The Judicial Magistrate No.III, Nagercoil The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Kanyakumari. In the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil.

Present : Thiru S. Arulmurugan, B.A., B.L., Principal Sessions Judge. Thursday the 4th day of June, 2020.

Crl.M.P. No.1866/2020 ( Crime No.164/2020 of Kotticode Police Station.)

T. Christopher, S/o. Thomas ... Petitioner

/Vs./ Sub Inspector of Police, Kotticode Police Station, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil. ... Respondent

This petition is filed by the Advocate Thiru T. Nelson, through online u/s

451 and 457 of Cr.P.C., to return the vehicle bearing Regn. No.TN 75 AF 2976 to the petitioner for interim custody.

ORDER

It is stated in the petition filed through online that the is the owner of the Bolero Pick up vehicle bearing Regn.No. TN 75 AF 2976. The name of the petitioner is not found in the FIR. It is alleged that 1/2 unit sand worth Rs.500/- was illegally transported in the said vehicle on 06.05.2020. The petitioner has no knowledge about the alleged transportation. FIR is registered u/s 379 IPC and 21(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 and prayed that the 2

Bolero Pick up vehicle bearing Reg. No.TN75 AF 2976 is ordered to be returned to the petitioner for interim custody.

3. The learned Public Prosecutor stated in the written objection that the vehicle was produced before the Court and numbered as R.P. No. 27/2020 and the vehicle has involved in illicit transportation of sand.

3. Point for consideration in this petition is :-

1. Whether this petition is to be allowed ?

4. Point for consideration No.1 : -

This petition has been filed by the petitioner to return the seized Bolero

Pick up vehicle bearing Regn.No. TN 75 AF 2976 for interim custody to the petitioner.

5. Perused the petition. It is seen from the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the owner of the Bolero Pick up vehicle bearing Regn. No. TN 75 AF 2976. The xerox copy of RC Book is produced by the petitioner. In the R.C. book, the number of vehicle is mentioned as

TN74 AF 2976 and the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle in TN74 AF 2976. But in the petition, the petitioner mentioned in the petition that he is the owner of the vehicle in TN75 AF 2976. On perusal of FIR it shows that the number of vehicle is mentioned as TN74 AF 2976. The vehicle involved in Crime No.164/2020 of

Kotticode Police Station is TN74 AF 2976 and that vehicle was produced before the

Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Padmanabhapuram in RP No. 27/2020. The 3 registration number of the vehicle is different in the petition as well as in the R.C.

Book and the FIR. Therefore this court is not inclined to return the vehicle to the petitioner for interim custody. Hence this petition is dismissed.

In the result, this petition is dismissed.

Pronounced by me in open court this the 4th day of June, 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.

Thursday the 4th day of June, 2020.

Crl.M.P. No. 1885/2020

Thangathurai, S/o. Mohan .. Petitioner

/Vs./

Sub Inspector of Police, South Thamaraikulam Police Station, Crime No. 317/2020 of South Thamaraikulam Police Station, Rep. by P.P. Nagercoil. .. Respondent

This petition is filed by Advocate Thiru V. Balaji Rajaram, u/s 439 Cr.P.C., praying to grant bail to the petitioner. ORDER

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

The petitioner has been charged for the offence u/s 379 IPC.

The case of the prosecution is that the accused person jointly theft a goat. Hence the charge.

The learned counsel for the petitioner stated in the petition filed through online that the petitioner is innocent and his name was not mentioned in the FIR and he is no way connected with the offence and he has no previous case and he is in judicial custody from 23.05.2020 and the investigation is almost over and he is ready to abide by any condition and prayed for bail to the petitioner.

The learned Public Prosecutor stated in the written objection that the petitioner is A1 and he was arrested on 24.05.2020. The accused person had involved in theft of one goat worth Rs.4,500/-. The accused persons have also involved in several other cases and property has been already recovered.

Considering the nature of the offence alleged to be committed by the petitioner/accused and also considering the objection of the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner/accused has involved in several other cases, hence considering the antecedents of the petitioner/accused, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner/accused. Hence this petition is dismissed.

In the result, this petition is dismissed.

Pronounced by me in open court this the 4th day of June, 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.

Thursday the 4th day of June, 2020.

Crl.M.P. No. 1888/2020

Thangathurai, S/o. Mohan .. Petitioner

/Vs./

Sub Inspector of Police, South Thamaraikulam Police Station, Crime No. 316/2020 of South Thamaraikulam Police Station, Rep. by P.P. Nagercoil. .. Respondent

This petition is filed by Advocate Thiru V. Balaji Rajaram, u/s 439 Cr.P.C., praying to grant bail to the petitioner. ORDER

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

The petitioner has been charged for the offence u/s 379 IPC.

The case of the prosecution is that the accused person jointly theft a goat. Hence the charge.

In the result, this petition is dismissed.

Pronounced by me in open court this the 4th day of June, 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.

Thursday, the 4th day of June, 2020.

Crl.M.P. No.1895/2020

Ganesh Kumar @ Ganesh S/o. Muruganantham (A4) .. Petitioner

/Vs./

Forest Ranger, Boothapandy Forest Range Office, WLOR No.11/2020 of Boothapandy Forest Range Office. Rep. by Special Public Prosecutor for Forest Offence Cases, Nagercoil. .. Respondent

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

ORDER

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

The petitioner has been charged for the offence u/s 9, 27, 39, 44(b), 51,

52 of Wild Life Protection Act and Section 21(d) of Tamil Nadu Forest Act.

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with other accused hunted monitor lizard (udumbu). Hence the charge.

The learned counsel for the petitioner stated in the petition filed through online that the petitioner is A4 and he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case and he has no previous criminal antecedents. This is the 2nd anticipatory bail petition and the earlier petition in Crl.M.P.No. 1583/2020 was dismissed by this court on 11.05.2020. The petitioner is ready to abide by any condition and prayed for anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

The learned Special Public Prosecutor for the forest offence cases submitted the written objection and stated that during the period of COVID 19 lockdown, the petitioner and others were trespassed in the Reserved Forest and hunted a Monitor Lizard and cooked it and the occurrence place is the Reserved

Forest and Biodiversity Hotspot and declared as Wildlife Sanctuary and also the

Natural Heritage Site declared by UNESCO and the investigation is not yet completed and it is very recent case and if A1 is arrested, the prosecution will find out the earlier occurrences, which were involved by him and the co-accused were confessed their involvement in the occurrence and the hunted Monitor Lizard is the rare and rarest animal and it is mentioned in schedule 1 of Wildlife Protection Act.

The earlier anticipatory bail in Crl.M.P.No. 1583/2020 was dismissed by this court on

15.05.2020 and there is no change of circumstances. The co-accused bail petition in

Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 5488/2020 was dismissed by the Hon'ble Madurai Bench of

Madras High Court on 28.05.2020 and if the petitioner is released on anticipatory bail at this stage, it will be affected the investigation and also to encourage the local people to hunt wild animals illegally in the Wildlife Sanctuary without any hesitation and he has serious objection to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Considering the objection of the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the forest offence cases that the petitioner/accused hunted a Monitor Lizard, which is a rare and rarest animal mentioned in schedule 1 of Wild Life Protection Act and also considering the earlier application in Crl.M.P.No. 1583/2020 was dismissed on

15.05.2020 and there is no change in circumstances, this court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner/accused. Hence this petition is dismissed.

In the result, this petition is dismissed.

Pronounced by me in open court this the 4th day of June, 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.

Thursday, the 4th day of June, 2020.

Crl.M.P. No. 1896/2020

Venkatesh, S/o. Mahalingam ..Petitioner

/Vs./

Sub Inspector of Police, Eathamozhy Police Station, Crime No.54/2019 of Eathamozhy Police Station. Rep. by P.P. Nagercoil. .. Respondent

This petition is filed by Advocate Thiru T. Praveen Kumar, u/s 439 Cr.P.C., praying to grant 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 454, 380 IPC.

The case of the prosecution is that on 16.04.2019 at about 9.00 A.M., the defacto complainant and his wife went to their work and when they returned to home at 5.30 P.M., they found that the door was broken and stolen the gold jewels and cash of Rs.40,000/- from the bureau, induction stove and mobile phone worth about

Rs.92,500/-. Hence the charge.

The learned counsel for the petitioner stated in the petition filed through online that the petitioner is innocent and for the past 60 days he is under judicial custody and this is the 4th bail petition and the 3rd bail petition in

Crl.M.P.No.1613/2020 was dismissed by this court on 14.05.2020 and he is ready to abide by any condition and prayed for bail to the petitioner.

The learned Public Prosecutor stated in the written objection that the accused person was arrested on 13.03.2020 and he is having two previous cases in

Erode and Trichy and he has involved in house breaking and theft of cash of

Rs.40,000/- and 3.25 sovereign of gold articles, induction stove and a mobile phone worth about Rs.92,500/- and the properties have been recovered and considering the present scenario, there is an apprehension for the accused person to misuse this outbreak and since the the accused person hails from Trichy, there is a possibility for him to evade from the trial and the earlier bail petition in Crl.M.P. No.1613/2020 was dismissed on 14.05.2020 and there is no change in circumstances and he has serious serious objection to grant bail to the petitioner.

Considering the gravity of the offence alleged to be committed by the petitioner/accused and also considering the objection of the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner/accused is having two previous cases at Erode and Trichy and also considering the objection of the learned Public Prosecutor that if the petitionr/accused is released on bail, there is a possibility for him to evade from trial and the earlier application in Crl.M.P.No. 1613/2020 was dismissed by this court on 14.05.2020 and there is no change in circumstances, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner/accused. Hence this petition is dismissed.

In the result, this petition is dismissed.

Pronounced by me in open court this the 4th day of June, 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.

Thursday, the 4th day of June, 2020.

Crl.M.P. No. 1902/2020

Abish, S/o Rohini (A8) ..Petitioner

/Vs./

Sub Inspector of Police, Eraniel Police Station, Crime No. 589/2019 of Eraniel Police Station, Rep. by P.P. Nagercoil. .. Respondent This petition is filed by Advocate Thiru C. Vijayakumar, u/s 439 Cr.P.C., praying to grant bail to the petitioner. ORDER

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

The petitioner has been charged for the offence u/s 395 IPC.

The case of prosecution is that on 29.11.2019 six persons entered into the informant's house and stolen all the materials. Hence the charge.

The learned counsel for the petitioner stated in the petition filed through online that the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case and the case properties were already recovered and the other accused were already arrested and released on bail and this is the 2nd bail petition and the earlier petition in

Crl.M.P.No. 1730/2020 was dismissed by this court on 21.05.2020 and he is ready to abide by any condition and prayed for bail to the petitioner. The learned Public Prosecutor stated in the written objection that the petitioner is A8 and the accused persons have committed theft of four mobile phones and cash Rs.11,500/-, total worth Rs.61,200/-. The victims are college students.

Moreover the accused persons have been arrested only on 03.05.2020 and it is too early to consider this application and the property has not been recovered. In the event of allowing this application there is apprehension for the accused persons to misuse the present scenario and indulge in further occurrence and the earlier application in Crl.M.P.No. 1730/2020 was dismissed on 21.05.2020 and there is no change in circumstances and he has serious serious objection to grant bail to the petitioner.

Considering the gravity of the offence alleged to be committed by the petitioner/accused and also considering the objection of the learned Public Prosecutor that the property has not been recovered and the earlier application in Crl.M.P.No.

1730/2020 was dismissed on 21.05.2020 and there is no change in circumstances, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner/accused. Hence this petition is dismissed.

In the result, this petition is dismissed.

Pronounced by me in open court this the 4th day of June, 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.

Thursday, the 4th day of June, 2020.

Crl.M.P. No. 1906/2020

M. Sugumaran, S/o Muthuswamy ..Petitioner

/Vs./

Inspector of Police, Arumanai Police Station, Crime No. 206/2020 of Arumanai Police Station. Rep. by P.P. Nagercoil. .. Respondent

This petition is filed by Advocate Thiru S. Arun Retna Kumar, u/s 439 Cr.P.C., praying to grant bail to the petitioner. ORDER

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

The petitioners have been charged for the offence u/s 4(1)(g), 4(1-A) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act and Section 188, 269 of IPC and Section 3 of

Epidemic Diseases Act 1897 r/w 51(b) Disaster Management Act 2005.

The case of prosecution is that on 21.04.2020 around 7.45 P.M. the respondent police along with police party went to the backyard of the petitioner, they found that the petitioner was preparing illicit arrack in a 10 lt aluminium drim.

Hence the charge.

The learned counsel for the petitioner stated in the petition filed through online that the petitioner is innocent and only for statistical purpose this false case has been registered against the petitioner. The petitioner is a rubber agriculturist and on

21.04.2020 the police came near the house of the petitioner on their normal rounds and found some acid in steel trays, which is used for curing rubber. The acid is not consumable and on suspicion this false case has been registered against the petitioner.

The petitioner came to know about the case, he filed an anticipatory bail petition before the Hon'ble Madurai Bench of Madras High Court and numbered as

Crl.OP(MD) No. 5342/2020 and subsequently that petition was dismissed as withdrawn. The earlier petition in Crl.M.P.No. 1698/2020 was dismissed by this court on 22.05.2020. The petitioner is in judicial custody from 11.05.2020 and he has no heinous overt act in the FIR and he has no previous antecedents and major part of the investigation is over and prayed for bail to the petitioner.

The learned Public Prosecutor stated in the written objection that the the accused person is having specific overt act of illicit preparation of raw arrack for commercial purpose and the chemical analysis report not yet received. Moreover the petitioner has been arrested only on 12.05.2020 and it is too early to consider this application and earlier application in Crl.M.P.No. 1698/2020 was dismissed by this court on 22.05.2020 and there is no change in circumstances. Despite having plenty of alcohol rehabilitation centres, we were not able to achieve 100% results. But this lock down has proved to be the best rehabilitating mechanism to retrieve those people to lead a peaceful life. The present scenario had facilitated the people to recover by themselves, which in turn have brought happiness to thousands of families. But in this circumstance, adherence to such criminal activities are highly condemnable and must be curbed. Now that since such crimes have increased, the same must be curbed at the earlier point of time in order to ensure the interest of the general public and also there is possibility for further occurrence and he has serious serious objection.

Considering the fact that the petitioner/accused is under judicial custody for 22days, by this time the investigation of this case would have been completed, this court is inclined to grant interim bail to the petitioner on execution of his own bond with direction that after his release from the jail, the petitioner shall move regular bail within a period of 30 days from the date of his release.

In the result, the petitioner is ordered to be released on interim bail on his executing an own bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- and after his release from the jail, he has to apply regular bail within a period of 30 days and accordingly this petition is allowed.

Pronounced by me in open court this the 4th day of June, 2020.

Sd/- S. Arulmurugan, Principal Sessions Judge.

To The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kuzhithurai. The Sub Inspector of Police, Arumanai Police Station. The Superintendent, District Jail, Nagercoil. 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.

Thursday, the 4th day of June, 2020.

Crl.M.P. No. 1907/2020

1. Irfan @ Irfan Ali, S/o Mohamed Kafoor (A1) 2. Rifai, S/o Mohamed (A2) ..Petitioners

/Vs./

Sub Inspector of Police, Kottar Police Station, Crime No. 708/2020 of Kottar Police Station, Rep. by P.P. Nagercoil. .. Respondent This petition is filed by Advocate Thiru A.K.E. Appaji, u/s 439 Cr.P.C., praying to grant bail to the petitioner. ORDER

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

The petitioner has been charged for the offence u/s 341, 294(b), 392, 506(ii)

IPC and Section 4 of TNPHW Act.

The case of prosecution is that on 19.05.2020 at 8.30 P.M. the petitioners along with another one co-accused robbed Rs.2,500/- from the informant when he came near at Edalakudy M.M.D. Hall with his wife, the petitioners abused filthy languages against his wife and threatened the life of them. Hence the charge.

The learned counsel for the petitioners stated in the petition filed through online that the petitioners are innocent and they are no way connected with the offence and they have been in judicial custody from 22.05.2020 and they are ready to abide by any condition and prayed for bail to the petitioners.

The learned Public Prosecutor stated in the written objection that the petitioners are A1 and A3 and the accused person had robbed cash Rs.3,000/-, mobile phone worth Rs.3,000/-. Out of which only Rs.2,000/- has been recovered, rest are not recovered. A2 is absconding and mobile phone is yet to be recovered from him.

A1 is having 12 previous cases and also it is imperative to note that Goondas

Proposal is pending for A1 before the District Collector and A3 is having 9 previous cases. Moreover the petitioners have been arrested only on 22.05.2020 and it is too early to consider this application. Considering the gravity of the offence and the antecedents of the accused persons, he has serious serious objection to grant bail to the petitioners.

Considering the gravity of the offence alleged to be committed by the petitioners/accused and only a portion of the property has been recovered and the rests are not yet recovered and A2 also absconding and considering the objection of the learned Public Prosecutor that A1 is having 12 previous cases and A3 is having 9 previous cases, hence considering the antecedents of the petitioners/accused, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners/accused. Hence this petition is dismissed.

In the result, this petition is dismissed.

Pronounced by me in open court this the 4th day of June, 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.

Thursday, the 4th day of June, 2020.

Crl.M.P. No.1914/2020

Selvaraj, S/o. Lekshamanan ..Petitioner

/Vs./

Sub Inspector of Police, Thiruvattar Police Station, Crime No. 217/2020 of Thiruvattar Police Station, Rep. by P.P. Nagercoil. .. Respondent

This petition is filed by Advocate M. Ganesh, u/s 439 Cr.P.C., praying to grant 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 4(1-A), 4(1)(g) of TN

Prohibition Act.

The case of prosecution is that on 14.04.2020 at 12.00 hours, while the respondent police along with police party doing roanth duty at Kallampottai, they found that the were preparing illicit arrack. Hence the charge.

The learned counsel for the petitioner stated in the petition filed through online that the accused is in judicial custody from 12.05.2020 and he is ready to abide by any condition and prayed for bail to the petitioner.

The learned Public Prosecutor stated in the written objection that the petitioner is A1 and the accused persons have involved in illicit preparation of 1 lt of poisonous arrak and 2 lts of raw arrack and the accused person has been arrested only on 12.05.2020 and it is too early to consider this application and the investigation is in premature stage. Earlier application in Crl.M.P.No. 1801/2020 was dismissed only on 29.05.2020 and there is no change of circumstances. Despite having plenty of alcohol rehabilitation centres, we were not able to achieve 100% results. But this lock down has proved to be the best rehabilitating mechanism to retrieve those people to lead a peaceful life. The present scenario had facilitated the people to recover by themselves, which in turn have brought happiness to thousands of families. But in this circumstance, adherence to such criminal activities are highly condemnable and must be curbed. Now that since such crimes have increased, the same must be curbed at the earlier point of time in order to ensure the interest of the general public and also there is possibility for further occurrence and he has serious serious objection to grant bail to the petitioner.

Considering the fact that the petitioner/accused is under judicial custody for 22 days, by this time the investigation of this case would have been completed, this court is inclined to grant interim bail to the petitioner on execution of his own bond with direction that after his release from the jail, the petitioner shall move regular bail within a period of 30 days from the date of his release.

Pronounced by me in open court this the 4th day of June, 2020.

Sd/- S. Arulmurugan, Principal Sessions Judge.

To The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Padmanabhapuram The Sub Inspector of Police, Thiruvattar Police Station. The Superintendent, District Jail, Nagercoil. 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.

Thursday the 4th day of June, 2020.

Crl.M.P. No. 1915/2020

Abish Kumar, S/o. Justin (A2) .. Petitioner

/Vs./

Sub Inspector of Police, Thuckalay Police Station, Crime No. 619/2020 of Thuckalay Police Station, Rep. by P.P. Nagercoil. .. Respondent

This petition is filed by Advocate Thiru A.K.E. Appaji, u/s 439 Cr.P.C., praying to grant bail to the petitioner. ORDER

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

The petitioner has been charged for the offence u/s 294(b), 384, 395 and

506(ii) IPC.

The case of the prosecution is that on 07.05.2020 at about 10.00 A.M when the informant was came at Thiruvithancode, Amaravathy Pond and enquired about a place to a gang of person who were in the bank of said pond, but they threatened him and extorted his cell phone. Later on 13.05.2020 they demanded

Rs.10,000/ to the informant and received the money and received to deliver his cell phone. Hence the charge.

The learned counsel for the petitioner stated in the petition filed through online that the petitioner is innocent and he is a student studying II year B.Sc.,

Electronics in Lekshmipuram Arts and Science College and he is no way connected with the offences as alleged. The date of occurrence is 07.05.2020, but the complainant was lodged only on 14.05.2020 and the petitioner is in judicial custody from 16.05.2020 and the petitioner has no previous antecedents and the property was recovered in this case and prayed for bail to the petitioner.

The learned Public Prosecutor stated in the written objection that the petitioner is A2 and the accused persons had involved in extortion of defacto complainant's mobile phone. Then the accused persons had demanded Rs.10,000/- for returning the mobile phone, since the defacto complainant's personal photos were there in his mobile phone, he had paid the same. Thereafter, as and when the defacto complainant demanded for his mobile phone, the accused person had used foul language, threatened and refused to return the same. It is imperative to note that, taking advantage of the current scenario on 07.05.2020 during the lockdown, the accused persons had indulged in such activities, which are highly condemnable, since the lockdown there is apprehension for further occurrence and the earlier application for A4 in Crl.M.P.No. 1837/2020 was dismissed only 01.06.2020. Even though the property has been recovered, considering the nature and gravity of the offence, he has serious serious objection to grant bail to the petitioner.

Considering the gravity of the offence alleged to be committed by the petitioner/accused during the lockdown period and the earlier application for A4 was dismissed on 01.06.2020 and also considering the objection of the learned Public

Prosecutor that if the petitioner/accused is released on bail, he may commit similar offences during the lockdown period, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner/accused. Hence this petition is dismissed.

In the result, this petition is dismissed.

Pronounced by me in open court this the 4th day of June, 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.

Thursday the 4th day of June, 2020.

Crl.M.P. No. 1918/2020

Selvam, S/o. Murugan @ Katta Boss : Petitioner

/Vs./

Inspector of Police, Vadasery Police Station, Crime No. 341/2019 of Vadasery Police Station, Rep. by P.P. Nagercoil. : Respondent

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

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

The petitioner has been charged for the offence u/s 392, 427 IPC.

The case of prosecution is that on 08.05.2020 at about 3.30 P.M., the petitioner along with three others robbed two empty gas cylinders worth Rs.4,800/- from the informant and caused damage to his vehicle when he was delivering gas cylinders at Puthery bus stop and they threatened the life of the informant. Hence the charge.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted in the petition filed through online that the petitioner is innocent and it is a put up case made by the respondent police only to implicate this petitioner in this case and he is no way connected with the above said offences. The petitioner is in judicial custody from 09.05.2020 and he is ready to abide by any condition and prayed for bail to the petitioner.

In the written submission the learned Public Prosecutor stated that the petitioner is A1 and the defacto complainant is employed in gas delivery. Since the defacto complainant questioned the accused persons for taking the empty gas cylinder, the accused persons had damaged the front glass of the mini truck worth

Rs.8,000/- and had robbed two empty gas cylinders worth Rs.4,800/-. The accused person has been arrested only on 09.05.2020 and it is too early to consider this application and the investigation is in premature stage. Earlier anticipatory bail petition for A4 in Crl.M.P.No. 1842/2020 was dismissed on 02.06.2020. Considering the nature of occurrence and the antecedents of the accused person, he has serious objection to grant bail to the petitioner.

Considering the gravity of the offence alleged to be committed by the petitioner/accused and also considering the objection of the learned Public Prosecutor that the investigation is in premature stage, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner/accused. Hence this petition is dismissed.

In the result, this petition is dismissed.

Pronounced by me in open court this the 4th day of June, 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.

Thursday, the 4th day of June, 2020.

Crl.M.P. No.1919/2020

1. S. Sivakumar, S/o. Suyambudurai 2. Dinesh Thaveethu, S/o Yakobu .. Petitioners

/Vs./

Forest Range Officer, Boothapandy Forest Range Office, WLOR No.15/2020 of Boothapandy Forest Range Office. Rep. by Special Public Prosecutor for Forest Offence Cases, Nagercoil. .. Respondent

This petition is filed by Advocate Thiru K. Subhakaravel, u/s 439

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

ORDER

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

The petitioners have been charged for the offence u/s 9, 39, 51 and 52 of Wild Life (Protection) Act 1972.

The case of the prosecution is that based on the information received from the public regarding fishing in the Achankulam irrigation tank, on 23.05.2020 at about 3.30 A.M the 1st petitioner has been brought to the Aralvaimozhy Forest

Office by the Forest officials and examined him. While the forest officials were examined the 1st petitioner and seen the 1st petitioner's cell phone they found that some wild animals have been hunted by the 1st petitioner with the help of 2nd petitioner. Hence the charge.

The learned counsel for the petitioners stated in the petition filed through online that the petitioners are innocent and they have not committed any offence.

The forest officials have not arrested the petitioners red handed. The photographs are fabricated one and they have been in judicial custody from 23.05.2020. The petitioners are ready to abide by any condition and prayed for bail to the petitioners.

The learned Special Public Prosecutor for the forest offence cases submitted the written objection and stated that the petitioners and other accused were trespassed in the Wild Life Sanctuary and hunted wild animals. During the period of

COVID 19 lockdown, the petitioner and others were trespassed in the Wildlife

Sanctuary and hunted Indian rock python and killed it and on 19.03.2020 the 1st petitioner and others were hunted 1. Indian flap shell turtle – lissemys punctata on

12.10.2019, 2. Monitor Lizard on 11.11.2019 and cooked them. The 1st petitioner had recording video of the above said occurrence in his android phone and it was seized by the forest officials and also he gave a confession statement. The occurrence places were declared as Wild Life Sanctuary, reserved forest, Regionally Bio- diversity and also Eco sensitive zone. The investigation is not yet completed and it is very recent occurrence and the co-accused are not yet arrested. If the co-accused are arrested, the prosecution will find out their earlier occurrences which were involved by them. The hunted 1. Indian rock python, 2. Indian flapshell turtle - lissemys punctata 3. Monitor Lizard are the rare and rarest animal, mentioned in schedule 1 of Wild Life Protection Act and 4. Palm civet is also a rarest animal, mentioned in schedule 2 part 2 of Wild Life Protection Act. If the petitioners are released on bail at this stage, it will be affected the investigation and also to encourage the local people to hunt wild animals illegally in the Wild Life Sanctuary without any hesitation and he has serious objection to grant bail to the petitioner.

Considering the objection of the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the forest offence cases that the petitioner/accused hunted 1. Indian rock python, 2.

Indian flapshell turtle - lissemys punctata 3. Monitor Lizard are the rare and rarest animal, mentioned in schedule 1 of Wild Life Protection Act and 4. Palm civet is also a rarest animal, mentioned in schedule 2 part 2 of Wild Life Protection Act and considering the gravity of the offence alleged to be committed by the petitioner/ accused, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Hence this petition is dismissed.

In the result, this petition is dismissed.

Pronounced by me in open court this the 4th day of June, 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.

Thursday, the 21st day of May, 2020.

Crl.M.P. No. 1923/2020

1. Puspendran, S/o Rajendran (A1) 2. Iyyappan, S/o. Selvamoni (A2) .. Petitioners

/Vs./

Sub Inspector of Police, Kulasekharam Police Station Crime No. 397/2020 of Kulasekharam Police Station, Rep. by P.P. Nagercoil. .. Respondent

This petition is filed by Advocate Thiru S. Anto Cletus Raj u/s 439

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

ORDER

Perused the petition and written submission of the learned Public

Prosecutor.

The petitioners have been charged for the offence u/s 4(1-A) and 4 (1)

(g) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act.

The case of the prosecution is that on 20.05.2020 at about 6.00 A.M on the basis of secret information, the respondent police and his subordinates were patrolling duty at Uttamathikulathinkarai and found that the accused were involved in illicit preparation of arrack. Hence the charge.

The learned counsel for the petitioners stated in the petition filed through online that the petitioners are innocents and they have no previous cases and the investigation has been completed and the petitioners have been injudicial custody from 21.05.2020 and they are ready to abide by any condition and prayed for bail to the petitioners.

The learned Public Prosecutor stated in the written objection that the petitioners are A1 and A2 and the accused persons have involved in illicit preparation of 4 lts of poisonous arrack and 18 lts of raw arrack for commercial purpose. The accused persons have been arrested only on 20.05.2020 and it is too early to consider this application and the investigation is in premature stage. Despite having plenty of alcohol rehabilitation centres, we were not able to achieve 100% results. But this lock down has proved to be the best rehabilitating mechanism to retrieve those people to lead a peaceful life. The present scenario had facilitated the people to recover by themselves, which in turn have brought happiness to thousands of families. But in this circumstance, adherence to such criminal activities are highly condemnable and must be curbed. Now that since such crimes have increased, the same must be curbed at the earlier point of time in order to ensure the interest of the general public and also there is possibility for further occurrence and he has serious serious objection to grant bail to the petitioners.

Considering the fact that the petitioners have been arrested on

20.05.2020 and also considering the nature of the offence committed by the petitioners is quite dangerous to the life of the people and also considering the objection of the learned Public Prosecutor that the alleged criminal activities of the petitioners/accused is highly condemnable and also the investigation is in premature stage, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners/accused at this stage.

Hence this petition is dismissed.

In the result, this petition is dismissed.

Pronounced by me in open court this the 4th day of June, 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.

Thursday the 4th day of June, 2020.

Crl.M.P. No. 1925/2020

Justin Jose, S/o. Rayappan (A3) .. Petitioner

/Vs./

Sub Inspector of Police, Karungal Police Station, Crime No. 230/2020 of Karungal Police Station, Rep. by P.P. Nagercoil. .. Respondent

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

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

The petitioner has been charged for the offence u/s 379 IPC.

The case of the prosecution is that on 25.05.2020 at about 10.00 A.M while the defacto complainant was on rounds, the petitioner using Hitachi vehicle loading stone in another vehicle. Hence the charge.

The learned counsel for the petitioner stated in the petition filed through online that the petitioner is innocent and the alleged vehicles were recovered and the petitioner is in judicial custody from 25.05.2020 and the investigation is over and he is ready to abide by any condition and prayed for bail to the petitioner.

The learned Public Prosecutor stated in the written objection that during this lockdown, on 25.05.2020,tThe accused has involved in illicit transportation of one unit rock stone without any valid pass. The accused person has been arrested only on 25.05.2020 and it is too early to consider this application. Considering the fact that accused person is bold enough to indulge in such activities during this lockdown is highly condemnable and he has serious serious objection to grant bail to the petitioner.

Considering the gravity of the offence alleged to be committed by the petitioner/accused that he has involved in illicit transportation of one unit rock stone without any valid pass during the lockdown period, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner/accused. Hence this petition is dismissed.

In the result, this petition is dismissed.

Pronounced by me in open court this the 4th day of June, 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.

Thursday the 4th day of June, 2020.

Crl.M.P. No. 1927/2020

P. Dhason, S/o. Panipichai : Petitioner

/Vs./

Sub Inspector of Police, Vellichanthai Police Station, Crime No. 18/2020 of Vellichanthai Police Station, Rep. by P.P. Nagercoil. : Respondent

This petition is filed by Advocate Thiru S. Christ Miller, u/s 439 Cr.P.C. praying to grant bail to the petitioner. ORDER

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

The petitioner has been charged for the offence u/s 294(b), 342, 307, 506(ii)

IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act.

The case of prosecution is that on 23.02.2020 at 3.30 P.M. the petitioner abused in filthy words, assaulted the defacto complainant with beer bottle, caused injuries and threatened her. Hence the charge.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted in the petition filed through online that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence. The 1st accused already approached the Hon'ble Madurai Bench of Madras High Court for anticipatory bail, it was numbered as Crl.O.P(MD) No. 5040/2020 and listed on

23.03.2003 and on that day the accused side argument was over and due to non availability of police instruction, the case was further adjourned to 30.03.2020. Due to the existing pandemic spread the petition was not heard and it is also pending before the Hon'ble High Court and now the pending matter is informed to the proper authority by e-mail and now the information received the matter will be decided shortly and thus A1 is waiting for the Hon'ble High Court's order. The injured was discharged from the hospital and the petitioner is in judicial custody from

12.05.2020 and this is the 2nd bail petition and the earlier petition in Crl.M.P.No.

1714/2020 was dismissed on 21.05.2020 and he is ready to abide by any condition and prayed for bail to the petitioner.

The learned Public Prosecutor stated in the written objection that the present petitioner is A2 and the accused person had thrice stabbed the defacto omplainant's husband in his stomach with beer bottle and as and when the defacto complainant tried to defend her husband, she was pushed down in such a way to outrage her modesty. The petitioner has been arrested only on 12.05.2020 and it is too early to consider this application. Earlier application was dismissed on

21.05.2020 and there is no change in circumstance. A1 is still absconding and as stated in the petition, anticipatory bail for A1 is pending before the Hon'ble Madurai

Bench of Madras High Court. Thus, the Hon'ble High court is holding the field. Even though the injured person has been discharged from hospital, considering the gravity of the offence, he has serious serious objection to grant bail to the petitioner. Considering the gravity of the offence alleged to be committed by the petitioner/accused that he has tried to kill the husband of the defacto complainant and the earlier application was dismissed on 21.05.2020 and there is no change in circumstances, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner/accused. Hence this petition is dismissed.

In the result, this petition is dismissed.

Pronounced by me in open court this the 4th day of June, 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.

Thursday the 4th day of June, 2020.

Crl.M.P. No. 1930/2020

Ferosekan @ Mohamad Ferosekan, (A6) S/o. Sahul Hameed .. Petitioner /Vs./

Sub Inspector of Police, Thiruvattar Police Station, Crime No. 147/2020 of Thiruvattar Police Station, Rep. by P.P. Nagercoil. .. Respondent

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

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

The petitioner has been charged for the offence u/s 147, 148, 341,

294(b), 323, 324, 427, 307 and 506(ii) IPC.

The case of the prosecution is that on 05.04.2020 the petitioner along with other accused waylaid the informant, abused in filthy words, assaulted the defacto complainant, caused injuries and threatened him. Hence the charge.

The learned counsel for the petitioner stated in the petition and written argument filed through online that the petitioner is A6 and on 28.04.2020 at 9.00

A.M the respondent police officers came to the accused house and called him for enquiry without any intimation of any other crime. On the next day the parents of the petitioner are filed the complaint petition before this court through e-mail and which was transferred to the concerned Judicial Magistrate. On 03.05.2020 around 5.30

P.M. the Investigation Officer produced the accused before the Judicial Magistrate and at the time the Judicial Magistrate inspecting the accused and his body, the court found lot of injuries, which was stated in the remand report and the earlier bail applications in Crl.M.P.No. 1570/2020 and 1580/2020 were dismissed on 11.05.2020 and he 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 A6. While parking the two wheeler, the defacto complainant and the accused encountered a commotion and the accused have assaulted the defacto complainant with knife and aruval on his back. Furthermore, they had also caused damage to the two-wheeler worth Rs.8,000/-. The accused person is having 7 previous cases including one POSCO case. Due to previous antecedents, the police officials were constrained to maintain rowdy history sheet in

H.S.No. 7/18. In the case of Neeru Yadav /Vs./ State of U.P. and Ors (2016) 15 SCC

422, the Division Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court had held that,

“ This being the position of law, it is clear as cloudless sky that

the High Court has totally ignored the criminal antecedents of

the accused. What has weighed with the High Court is the

doctrine of parity. A history-sheeter involved in the nature of

crimes which we have reproduced herein above, are not minor

offences so that he is not to be retained in custody, but the

crimes are of heinous nature and such crimes, by no stretch of imagination, can be regarded as jejune. Such cases do create a

thunder and lightening having the effect potentiality of

torrential rain in an analytical mind. The law expects the

judiciary to be alert while admitting these kind of accused

persons to be at large and, therefore, the emphasis is on

exercise of discretion judiciously and not in a whimsical

manner.”

Those precedents mention in the petition are not applicable for the petitioner. Earlier application in Crl.M.P.No. 1671/2020 was dismissed on 18.05.2020 and there is no change in circumstance. Even though the injured has been discharged from the hospital, he has serious serious objection to grant bail to the petitioner.

It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused that pending of previous cases are not a ground to deny bail to the petitioner/accused and in support of his argument, the learned counsel also relied the Judgments reported in

2012(2) Mh.L.J. (Cri) 412 and 2010 Crl.L.J. 1435 (SC). On the other hand the learned Public Prosecutor in his return reply relied the Judgment reported in (2016)

15 SCC 422 and contended that the criminal antecedents of the accused cannot be totally ignored and opposed the bail application strongly.

Considering the gravity of the offence alleged to be committed by the petitioner/accused that he was attempted to kill the defacto complainant with knife and aruval and also considering the fact that the petitioner is having seven previous cases including one POCSO case and he is a history sheeter in HS No.7/18 and also considering the fact that the earlier application was dismissed on 18.05.2020 and there is no change in circumstances, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner/accused. Hence this petition is dismissed.

In the result, this petition is dismissed.

Pronounced by me in open court this the 4th day of June, 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.

Thursday, the 4th day of June, 2020.

Crl.M.P. No.1931/2020

Boopathi Raj, S/o. Esakkiraj Subba Nayidu .. Petitioner

/Vs./

Sub Inspector of Police, Nesamony Nagar Police Station, Crime No. 340/2020 of Nesamony Nagar Police Station. Rep. by P.P. Nagercoil. .. Respondent

This petition is filed by Advocate Thiru M. Sahadevan, u/s 439 Cr.P.C., praying to grant 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 354(d), 506(i) IPC and Section 67 of Information Technology Act.

The case of prosecution is that some unknown person posted the complainant's photo as ugly and spread in community to spoil the complainant's name and stalking her, which was questioned by the complainant, the petitioner threatened orally. Hence the charge.

The learned counsel for the petitioner stated in the petition filed through online that the petitioner has not posted any photo of the complainant through any communication and due to previous enmity, this false case has been foisted against the petitioner and he is working as Reporter and he is only the breadwinner of his family and due to corona period this petitioner's family members suffered much without help of this petitioner and the petitioner is in judicial custody from

10.05.2020 and the earlier bail petition in Crl.M.P.No. 504/2020 was dismissed by the lower court on 26.05.2020 and the petitioner is ready to abide by any condition and prayed for bail to the petitioner.

The learned Public Prosecutor stated in the written objection that the accused person being the classmate of the defacto complainant, shared the image of the defacto complainant along with her mobile number and a message stating that

“ahh; Tl ntz;LkhdhYk; bry;ths; ” in Whats App group in such a way to portray the defacto complainant as a slut. In furtherance to the same, the defacto complainant was subjected to various unwanted messages and calls from different mobile numbers from unknown people. The accused person was arrested only on 10.05.2020 and it is too early to consider this application and the earlier application in

Crl.M.P.No. 1653/2020 was dismissed on 18.05.2020 and there is no change in circumstances. Since the said post has been already shared in various Whats App group, the defacto complainant is being defamed across the globe. Now a days such Cyber crimes have largely increased and the same must be curbed at the earliest point of time. Also, this has become a tool to spoil the life of young girl's life and he has serious objection to grant bail to the petitioner. Considering the nature of the offence offence alleged to be committed by the petitioner/accused and also considering the fact that the petitioner/accused is in judicial custody for 24 days, by this time the investigation of this case would have been completed, this court is inclined to grant interim bail to the petitioner on execution of his own bond with direction that after his release from the jail, the petitioner shall move regular bail within a period of 30 days from the date of his release.

Pronounced by me in open court this the 4th day of June, 2020.

Sd/- S. Arulmurugan, Principal Sessions Judge.

To The Judicial Magistrate No. II, Nagercoil. The Sub Inspector of Police, Nesamony Nagar Police Station. The Superintendent, District Jail, Nagercoil. 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.

Thursday, the 4th day of June, 2020.

Crl.M.P. No. 1932/2020

Mahesh, S/o Mani @ Nagamani (A5) ..Petitioner

/Vs./

Sub Inspector of Police, Vadasery Police Station, Crime No. 371/2020 of Vadasery Police Station, Rep. by P.P. Nagercoil. .. Respondent This petition is filed by Advocate Thiru R.A. Senthilkumar, u/s 439 Cr.P.C., praying to grant bail to the petitioner. ORDER

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

The petitioner has been charged for the offence u/s 379 IPC.

The case of the prosecution is that the respondent police was on patrol duty, they found that the accused has illegally transported 10 sacks of river sand in a bullock cart without any valid documents to transport such river sand. Hence the charge.

The learned counsel for the petitioner stated in the petition filed through online that the petitioner is innocent and he has no criminal antecedents in his life. The alleged property has been already recovered and the petitioner is in judicial custody from 22.05.2020 and the petitioner is ready to abide by any condition and prayed for bail to the petitioner.

The learned Public Prosecutor stated in the written objection that the petitioner is A5 and the accused persons have involved in theft and illicit transportation of river sand in 5 bullock carts (total 50 sacks-worth Rs.2,500/-). The accused has been arrested only on 22.05.2020 therefore it is too early to consider this application. It is pertinent to note that, this occurrence took place on 221.5.2020

(During this lockdown) as and when this whole world is concerned about this outbreak, these accused have intend to enrich themselves in an unjust manner. This occurrence raises strong apprehension that, taking undue advantage of this Nation- wide lockdown these accused persons have intended to use the same for black marketing. Earlier application for A1 to A4 in Crl.M.P.No. 1868/2020 was dismissed on 01.06.2020 . Moreover, Cases involving depletion of mines and minerals without valid pass is highly condemnable. And curtailment of such activities at the earliest point of time is highly essential. Having regard to the present scenario and considering the environmental concern and consequences thereof, he has serious objection to grant 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 in judicial custody for 12 days, this court is inclined to grant interim bail to the petitioner on execution of his own bond with direction that after his release from the jail, the petitioner shall move regular bail within a period of 30 days from the date of his release.

Pronounced by me in open court this the 4th day of June, 2020.

Sd/- S. Arulmurugan, Principal Sessions Judge.

To The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Nagercoil. The Sub Inspector of Police, Vadasery Police Station. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Nagercoil. The counsel for the petitioners.