Prakash v. The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 02-04-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Prakash S/o. Selvaraj No.1/222, Muneeswaran Koil Street, Injambakkam Post, Kancheepuram District 600 115 ..Petitioner(s) Vs The Inspector of Police M-6 Manali Police Station, Chennai.

Crime No.153 of 2026.

..Respondent(s) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, to enlarge the Petitioner on anticipatory bail in Crime No.153 of 2026 in the event of his arrest, pending investigation on the file of the Respondent-Police and thus render justice.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr.V. Muthupandi For Respondent(s):

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

ORDER

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Section 303(2) of BNS, 2023 and 21(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulations) Act, 1957, in Crime

No.153 of 2026, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner, along with other accused persons, was allegedly engaged in the illegal transportation of sand from Government land using a tractor and two JCB machines. Hence, the present complaint.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that the petitioner is not the owner of the vehicle and that he is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and sought anticipatory bail for the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), appearing for the respondent police, reiterated the case of the prosecution and, on instructions, submitted that the petitioner has been habitually involved in similar offences. He further submitted that one tractor and two JCB machines were found at the scene of occurrence. Hence, he strongly opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions.

6. From the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this Court is of the firm view that exploitation of natural resources must be viewed seriously. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner does not deserve the grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

02-04-2026 DRL To 1.The Inspector of Police M-6 Manali Police Station, Chennai.

2.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

DRL 02-04-2026