Arunkumar v. The State Rep.By, The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 17-02-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR CRL OP No. 3807 of 2026 Arun Kumar ..Petitioner(s) Vs The State represented by its Inspector of Police, Natrampalli Police station, Tirupattur District Cr.No.45 of 2026.

..Respondent(s) Prayer: This petition is filed under Section 482 of BNSS To enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of his arrest by the respondent police in Cr.No.45 of 2026 pending investigation on the file of the on the file of the respondent police ( Natrampalli Police station,Tirupattur District ) For Petitioner:

Mr. Magesh Kumar

For Respondent(s):

Ms.J.R. Archana, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioner, who apprehend arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 281, 106(1), 303(2), 326(a) of BNSS 2023 r/w Section 21(1) of Mines and Minerals ( Development & Regulation) Act in Crime No.45 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner has illegally transported river sand in a tipper lorry without valid permission. It is alleged the petitioner has driven the lorry in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased, due to which the deceased died. Hence the case.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any such offence as alleged by the prosecution and he is ready to co-operate with the investigation and abide by any other stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. He further submitted that the accident has taken place only due to the negligent driving of the deceased and the petitioner has driven the vehicle with proper care and caution. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police, reiterated the prosecution case and submitted submitted that the petitioner has driven the vehicle without following traffic rules and dashed against the deceased, due to which the deceased died. He further submitted there is no previous case pending against the petitioner. However, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by both counsel; the manner in which the occurrence has taken place; there is no previous case pending against the petitioner. I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to certain conditions.

7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date on which the order copy made, before the learned Judicial Magistrate Court No.III, Tirupattur on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction learned Magistrate concerned, and on further condition that:

(a) If the petitioner fails to surrender before the concerned Magistrate within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of

receipt of a copy of this order, this order shall stand automatically cancelled;

(b) The sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the application for surety ship (Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019]'. The learned Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one of identify proofs to ensure their identity;

(c) The petitioner shall report before the respondent police everyday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of three weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation; (d) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate actions against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on anticipatory bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji v. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560];

(e)If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act.

17-02-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order smn

To.

1. The Judicial Magistrate Court No.III, Tirupattur

2. The Inspector of Police, Natrampalli Police station, Tirupattur District

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras Chennai 600 104.

K.RAJASEKAR, J.

smn CRL OP No. 3807 of 2026 17-02-2026