Mr. Selvaganesh v. State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 07-04-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Mr. Selvaganesh ..Petitioner Vs

1. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Inspector of Police, GRP Police Station, Erode.

..Respondent Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under section 482 of BNSS to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest by the Respondent Police (Crime No.178 of 2025).

For Petitioner:

Mr.Muthupandi M For Respondent:

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

ORDER

The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 150(1)(a) and 147 of Indian Railways Act in Crime No.178 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 17.06.2025, a rail piece of 2.80m was kept at 360/800 between MVPM-DC UP line and loco of train no.22650

was tangled at 22.00 hrs and rail was removed at 22.40 hrs. Hence, this case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the occurrence took place on 18.06.2025 and that only based upon the google timeline, the respondent police suspected this petitioner and implicated him as Accused. There are no eye witnesses. He further submitted that he has been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. At this juncture, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is that he has kept 2.8 m of rail piece on the railway track. He further submitted that had that been any train passed on the rail piece, there is every possibility of serious accident. It is the also the contention of the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) that unless the petitioner is taken on custody, the involvement of the other accused for the said act cannot be unearthed.

5. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and the submission of the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) cannot be found

faulted. Therefore, this Court is of a firm view that it is not appropriate to consider the bail application of the petitioner. Hence, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 07-04-2026 SHL To:

1. The Inspector of Police, GRP Police Station, Erode.

2. The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras

C.KUMARAPPAN J.

SHL 07-04-2026