Muthuraman v. The State Rep.By Its The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 12.01.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Crl.O.P.No.518 of 2026 1.Muthuraman

2. Dinesh ... Petitioners Vs.

State Rep by The Inspector of Police, Santhavasal Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District ... Respondent (Crime No.419 of 2025) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with the Crime No.419 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioners : Mr.E.Sathiyaraj Elangovan For Respondent : Ms.J.R.Archana Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 303(2), 326(a) of BNS Act (Corresponding Section 379, 430 of IPC ) and Section 21(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation )Act, in Crime No.419 of 2025, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail. 1/4

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners had involved in illegal transportation of three units of red soil from the Government Poramboke land in JCB vehicle, without any valid license. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide by any condition imposed by this court. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the petitioner had involved in illegal transportation of three units of red soil from the Government Poramboke land in JCB vehicle, without any valid license and hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegations, and the submissions made by learned counsels on either side, considering the fact that the petitioners had allegedly indulged in illegal 2/4

quarrying activities causing damage to the ecology, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to these petitioners.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 12.01.2026 gv To

1. The Inspector of Police, Santhavasal Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District 2.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras, Chennai 600 104.

3/4

K.RAJASEKAR , J.

gv Crl.O.P.No.518 of 2026 12.01.2026 4/4