R. Rajesh v. State, Rep. By The Sub Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 27-03-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN 1.R. Rajesh S/o.Ramalingam, No. 75 Mannedi Street, Evaur, Thiruvallur District.

Tamilnadu 601 201.

2.D. Sri Ramakrishnan, S/o.Durai, No.160, Mel Street, Peddikuppam, Thiruvallur District, Tamilnadu-601201.

..Petitioner(s) Vs.

State, Rep. by The Sub Inspector Of Police, Sipcot Police Station, Ranipet District.

(Crime No. 0070 of 2026) ..Respondent(s) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, to enlarge the Petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with in Crime No.0070 of 2026 on the file of respondent Police and thus render justice. For Petitioner(s):

V.Manimaran For Respondent(s):

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

ORDER

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Act, 2023 r/w. 21(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act in Crime No.70 of 2026, on the file of the respondent police seek anticipatory bail.

2. The allegation against the petitioners is that they were involved in the illegal transportation of 24 units of river sand without any valid permit or license. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners are innocent and have not committed any offence as alleged by the defacto complainant, and that they have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court and are willing to cooperate with the investigation. Hence, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), appearing for the respondent police, reiterated the prosecution case and, upon instructions, submitted that there is one previous case of a similar nature pending against the petitioners. Hence, he opposed the grant of anticipatory bail.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent.

6. From the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), it is seen that there is one previous case of a similar nature pending against the petitioners. This indicates their antecedents and raises a reasonable apprehension that they may indulge in similar offences if enlarged on anticipatory bail. Hence, this Court is of the firm view that the petitioners do not deserve anticipatory bail. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

27-03-2026 MPA To

1. The Sub Inspector Of Police, Sipcot Police Station, Ranipet District.

(Crime No. 0070 of 2026)

2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

MPA 27-03-2026