Sivachandiran v. The State Rep By Its The Sub-Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 09-04-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN CRL OP No. 8971 of 2026 Sivachandiran, S/o.Krishnamoorthy, Bajanai Kovil Street, Chinnamadam, Villupuram Taluk, Villupuram District.

...Petitioner/Sole

Accused Vs The State rep by its The Sub-Inspector of Police, Valavanur Police Station, Villupuram District.

in Crime No.555 of 2025.

...Respondent/

Complainant Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Cr.No.555 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner :

Ms.Raji For Respondent :

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

ORDER

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest for the alleged offences under Sections 303(2) and 326(a) of the BNS, 2023 r/w. 21(1) of the Mines and

Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957, in Crime No.555 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was found in illegal possession of 1/4 unit of river sand without any valid licence or permit. 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 prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in this case. She further submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court and the petitioner is ready to cooperate for the 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 three previous cases have been registered against the petitioner, out of which one is similar in nature. Hence, he strongly opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent.

6. From the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), it is clear that the petitioner has three previous cases. From the conduct of the petitioner, it would be demonstrable that he subverted justice by misusing liberty.

7. Considering the nature of the allegation and considering the offence of exploitation of nature, this Court is of the view that exploitation of nature repeatedly cannot be encouraged by granting anticipatory bail. Hence, this Court is of the firm view that the petitioner does not deserve the relief of anticipatory bail.

8. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 09-04-2026 dk

To

1. The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Villupuram.

2. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Valavanur Police Station, Villupuram District.

3. The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

dk CRL OP No. 8971 of 2026 09-04-2026