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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 11.03.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Rajniganth ... Petitioner/A1 Vs.

The State rep. by, The Inspector of Police, Thimmampettai Police Station, Tirupathur District.

... Respondent (Crime No.99 of 2025) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of arrest pending investigation in Crime No.99 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner :

Mr.P.Elanchezhiyan For Respondent :

Mr.P.Dhileepan, Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

O R D E R

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 303(2) and 326(a) of BNS Act, 2023 in Crime No.99 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was found 1/4

to be involved in illegal transportation of 1 unit of river sand without any valid licence or permit and he was caught red handed by the respondent police. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any such offence as alleged by the defacto complainant and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that he is ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court and he is ready to co-operate for investigation. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and, upon instructions, submitted that the petitioner is having six previous cases. Hence, he strongly opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and also perused the materials available on record.

6. From the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) the petitioner has got six previous cases, which clearly demonstrate 2/4

that as and when he was enlarged on bail, he misused the liberty granted. In view of the above, it become inexorable to dismiss the present petition, as the petitioner does not deserve anticipatory bail.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 11.03.2026 ssi To:

1.The Inspector of Police, Pallikonda Police Station, Vellore District.

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN , J.

ssi 3/4

11.03.2026 4/4