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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 20-04-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN CRL OP No. 9837 of 2026 Ezhumalai S/o.Velu, No.4/36, old colony, Mariyamman Kovil Street, Devanur, Viluppuram - 605752.

...Petitioner

Vs The State Rep by, The Inspector of Police, Arakandanallur Police Station, Villupuram - 605 752.

(Cr.No.19/2026)

...Respondent

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of B.N.S.S., to enlarge on bail to the petitioner in the event of his arrest in Cr.No.19 of 2026 pending on the file of respondent.

For Petitioner :

Mr.Sri Krishna B K For Respondent :

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

ORDER

The petitioner/A5, who apprehends arrest for the alleged offences under Sections 303(2) and 326(a) of BNS, in Crime No.19 of 2026, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The allegation against the petitioner/A5 is that the petitioner was found in illegal possession of 9 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 prosecution, and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court and he 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 two previous cases have been registered against the petitioner. 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. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the respondent would submit that there are about fourteen accused, and this petitioner is A5. He would further submit that the petitioner has got two previous cases, which clearly demonstrates that the petitioner has misused the liberty granted by this Court, and the quantity of river sand involved is also huge. Hence, this Court is of the firm view that the petitioner does not deserve anticipatory bail.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 20-04-2026 dk

1. The District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvennainallur.

2. The Inspector of Police, Arakandanallur Police Station, Villupuram - 605 752.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

dk CRL OP No. 9837 of 2026 20-04-2026