Santhosh Kumar v. The State Represented By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 16-02-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Santhosh Kumar ..Petitioner(s) Vs The State Represented by The Sub-Inspector of Police, Arni Town Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District. (Crime No.525 of 2025) ..Respondent(s) Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023, pleased to enlarge Petitioner/Accused No.1 on Bail in the event of his arrest by the Respondent police herein concerned in Crime No.525 of 2025 on the file of Sub-Inspector of Police, Arni Town Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr. G. Saravanan For Respondent(s):

M/s. J.R. Archana, Government Advocate (Crl.side)

ORDER

The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offences under Sections 303(2) and 326(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanita (BNS) 2023 Act, r/w Section 21(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act,1957, in Crime No.525 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.

The allegation against the petitioner is that he was found in possession of quarter unit of sand, which was being illegally transported in Swaraj Tractor with Trailer vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-25-BW-7598, without any valid permit or licence. Hence, the present complaint has been registered against him.

3.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that he is ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4.

The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and opposed for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner. He further submitted that the vehicle used for the illegal transportation and the quarter unit of sand have been seized and that the investigation is still in progress.

5.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl Side) for the respondent and perused the entire materials available on record.

6.

This being the second application for anticipatory bail, and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the nature of the offence committed by the petitioner, this Court finds no change in circumstances warranting the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 7.

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 16-02-2026 klt To 1.

The Judicial Magistrate, Arni, Tiruvannamalai District. 2.

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Arni Town Police Station, Tiruvannamalai. 3.

The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai.

K.RAJASEKAR, J.

klt 16-02-2026