The court emphasized the gravity of the offence and the potential for tampering with witnesses and absconding in denying anticipatory bail to the influential petitioners.

1. The petitioners, who have been arrayed as A.1, A.2A.4 and A.5, are alleged to have committed the following offences, with reference to Cr.No.19 of 2012 on the file of the respondent, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The above case was registered on a complaint given by the Tahsildar, Vanur, who had stated that on 22.9.2012, he was inspecting certain red sand quarrys in various survey numbers at Poothurai village and at that time, A.5 (Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.24276 of 2012) came along with others and stated that all those quarrys belonged to a former Minister, his son and relatives and questioned their surveying the area and prevented the Officers from discharging their duties.

3. It was further stated in the complaint that A.1 (the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.24086 of 2012) was the former Minister of Mines and Minerals during 2007 and by misusing his official powers, granted mining licence to his son and his close relatives and they have violated the licence conditions and also have excavated sand excessively and thereby caused loss of more than 28 crores to the Government.

4. The respondent, on registration of the case against five persons, has started investigation. The preliminary investigation revealed that during the year 2007, A.1 was holding additional portfolio of Mines and Minerals, issued licenses to his son, relatives and friends for red sand quarrying. Though the licence was issued to quarry only in the patta land, which belong to A.2, A.3 and A.4, they have been quarrying in the poramboke land also.

5. A.2 has taken in excess of 16556 lorry loads and has not paid Seigniorage fees causing revenue loss more than Rs.19 crores. Similarly, A.3 has taken in excess of 23,094 lorry loads and A.4 has taken in excess of 18513 lorry loads and thus caused revenue loss of more than Rs.10 crores.

6. An approximate estimate of loss caused so far has been arrived at Rs.28 crores. A.5, who is the Manager of all the five quarries, is in-charge of day today business. A.1, being the then Former Minister of Mines and Minerals, A.2, his son and A.3 and A.4, his close relative and friends and A.5, the Manager have been implicated for the above said offences. A.3 was already arrested and the others apprehending arrest, have filed the above petitions, seeking anticipatory bail.

7. Mr.S. Ashok Kumar, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for Mr.A. Sasidharan in Crl.O.P.No.24085/2012 and Mr.Thirunavukarasu in Crl.O.P.No.24086 of 2012, learned counsel appearing for A.1, A.2 and A.4, would submit that A.2 and A.4 have been issued with licence by the District Administration in their patta land and they have been quarrying during the licence period in accordance with the licence conditions and so far there is no complaint against them.

8. The learned Senior Counsel pointed out that a show cause notice was issued by the Revenue Divisional officer, Villupuram on 19.4.2012 and A.2 to A.4 have given suitable reply and such being the case, suddenly, a complaint was obtained from the Tahsildar only with the political motive and the case has been registered.

9. The learned Senior Counsel pointed out that there is no irregularity or misuse of powers in granting of licence and A.1, who is the former Minister, has been unnecessarily dragged in. The learned Senior Counsel pointed out that there is no violation of licence conditions and the excavation of sand was within the limit and Seigniorage fee was already paid to the Government and the quarrying was also stopped.

10. The learned Senior Counsel pointed out that registering a complaint is nothing but a political vendetta and therefore, the rights of the individuals have to be protected.

11. Mr.AR.L. Sundaresan, learned Senior counsel, appearing for Mr.E.C.Ramesh for A.5 would submit that even according to the complaint, it is stated that A.5 had only questioned the officers who came for inspection and nothing else. There is no overtact or allegation against A.5 and none of the offences mentione