The court ruled that the offence under Section 305(e) of BNS is not relevant due to the prior enactment of a special law covering river sand theft.

ORDER

This bail application is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (for short ‘ BNSS ’).

2. Petitioner is the second accused in Crime No.712 of 2025 of Valapattanam Police Station, Kannur, registered for the offences punishable under Section 305 (e) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023 (for short, ‘ BNS ’), apart from Section 20 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act , 2001 (for short, ‘the Sand Act’) and Section 132 (1) r/w Section 179 of the Motor Vehicles Act , 1988.

3. According to the prosecution, the accused had on 12.08.2025, transported river sand in a lorry bearing registration No.KL-57-B-7250 thereby committing the offence alleged.

4. I have heard Sri.P.K.Subhash, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri.Noushad K.A., the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. In the decision inMohammed Noufal v. State of Kerala [(2021) SCC Online Ker 5858] , this Court has held that Sections 20 and 23 of the Sand Act are bailable in nature. It was also observed that, when a special law covering the question of theft of river sand has been enacted, the offence under IPC for theft of river sand cannot be attracted. After the coming into force of BNS Act, the relevant provision for theft is Section 305 (e) of . Petitioner is alleged to have committed the offence under Section

305(e) ie., theft of river sand.

6. In view of the decision in Mohammed Noufal’s case (supra), the offence under Section 305 (e) of BNS cannot be attracted. Since the remaining offences alleged against the petitioner are bailable, petitioner’s apprehension of arrest in connection with a non-bailable offence does not subsist. Accordingly, the bail application is closed.