Anuth v. State Rep By The Inspector Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 18-03-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Anuth S/o.Thamothiran, No.16, Mooppanar Nagar, Edayansathu, Vellore District.
...Petitioner/Sole
Accused Vs State rep by the Inspector of Police, Anaicut Police Station, Anaicut, VeIlore District.
(Crime No.04 of 2026)
...Respondent/
Complainant Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.04 of 2026 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Anaicut Police Station, Anaicut, Vellore District. For Petitioner:
Mr.G.Vinodh Kumar 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 Act (379 and 430 of the IPC) in Crime No.04 of 2026, 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 2 units 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 de-facto 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 cooperate 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 two previous cases have been registered against the petitioner, out of which one previous case 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 one previous case of a similar nature. From the conduct of the petitioner, it would be demonstrable that he subverted the justice by misusing the liberty. Considering the nature of the allegation and considering the offence of exploitation of nature, this Court is of the view that exploitation of nature 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.
7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 18-03-2026 DK Copy to:
1. The Judicial Magistrate No.V, Vellore.
2. The Inspector of Police Anaicut Police Station, Anaicut, Vellore District.
3. The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras.
C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
DK CRL OP No. 6985 of 2026 18-03-2026