Mohanraj vs State

C.Kumarappan, J

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 21.05.2026 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 326(a) and 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, read with Section 21(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, in Crime No.223 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

The case of the prosecution is that based on a complaint lodged by the Village Administrative Officer (VAO), the petitioner was found illegally transporting river sand using a vehicle without any valid license or permit. Hence, the case.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the petitioner is neither the owner of the vehicle nor the owner of the alleged mineral involved in the offence. He states that the petitioner has been in continuous judicial custody since 21.05.2026 and is willing to abide by any stringent conditions, and thus prays for the grant of bail.

The learned Government Counsel (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police opposes the grant of bail, highlighting that a total of 8 vehicles were involved in the occurrence and that the investigation is still underway. However, he fairly concedes that there are no bad antecedents or previous cases pending against the petitioner.

I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.

Considering the facts and the totality of the circumstances of the case, this Court takes note of the fact that the petitioner is neither the owner of the vehicle nor the owner of the seized mineral. Taking into further consideration the period of incarceration already undergone by the petitioner since 21.05.2026 and the fact that he has no previous cases of similar nature, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, subject to certain conditions.

Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only), with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Panruti, and subject to the following conditions:

[a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the Application for Suretyship [Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019']. The learned Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one of the identity proofs to ensure their identity;

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police everyday at 10.30 a.m. for a period of two weeks and as and when required for interrogation;

[c] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

[d] the petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

[e] on breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions had been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court itself, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)13 SCC 283];

[f] if the petitioner thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR may be registered under Section 269 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.