D. Raghul v. State Rep.By, The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 12-03-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN D. Raghul S/o.Damodhiran, Nadupattarai, Devasthanam, Vellore District, Tamil nadu.

..Petitioner(s) Vs State Rep.by, The Inspector of Police, Vaniyambadi Taluk Police Station, Thirupathur District.

Crime No.468 of 2025 ..Respondent(s) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on Bail in the event of arrest in the Crime No. 468 of 2025 on the file of respondent police and pass such further other order or orders. For Petitioner(s):

M.Chandru For Respondent(s):

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

ORDER

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest by the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 303(2), 332(a) of BNS Act, in Crime No.468 of 2025 registered on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that, based on secret information, the respondent police went to the scene of occurrence and found that the petitioner had illegally quarried 1⁄4 unit of rive sand near the Palar river using a bullock cart, thereby causing damage to the land and the water body. Hence a case has been registered against the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that this is the second anticipatory bail petition and the earlier anticipatory bail petition was dismissed by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.4000 of 2026 dated 18.02.2026, and 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 conditions that may be imposed by this Court. 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 that the petitioner has two previous cases pending against him. Hence, she opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.

6. From the submission of the learned counsel on either side, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has 2 previous cases, out of which one is of a similar nature, which clearly demonstrates that the petitioner has misused the liberty granted by this Court and subverts the course of justice by again

committing the similar offences. Apart from that, this is a case involving exploitation of natural resources, which has to be viewed seriously. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 12-03-2026 MPA To 1.The Inspector of Police, Vaniyambadi Taluk Police Station, Thirupathur District.

Crime No.468 of 2025 2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

MPA 12-03-2026