Neelakandan v. 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 Neelakandan ..Petitioner(s) Vs State Rep.by, Inspector of Police, Edaikkal Police Station, Kallakurichi District.

Crime No.56/2026.

..Respondent(s) Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, to enlarge the petitioner bail in the event of the arrest in connection with the Crime No.56 of 2026 on the file of respondent police and thus render justice. For Petitioner(s):

Mr.Balachandran T For Respondent(s):

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

ORDER

The petitioner, apprehending arrest by the respondent police for offences punishable under Section 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, read with Section 21(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and

Regulation) Act, 1957, in Crime No. 56 of 2026, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 10.04.2026, at approximately 12:00 PM, during a routine vehicle check near the Asanur SIPCOT, the respondent police intercepted a vehicle (Registration No. TN 46 M 4699) involved in the illegal transportation of three units of pebbles. Hence, the present case was registered.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and has no connection to the alleged offence. He further submits that the petitioner undertakes to abide by any conditions imposed by this Court and, on this basis, prays for the grant of anticipatory bail.

4. These contentions were strongly opposed by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police. He submitted that the petitioner is a repeat offender with seven previous cases, six of which are of a similar nature. On these grounds, he vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail.

5. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.

6. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances and the nature of the allegations, this Court finds that there is a prima facie case made out against the petitioner involving the illegal transportation of minerals. The petitioner's contention regarding false implication is a matter for trial and does not outweigh the prosecution's submission regarding the petitioner's criminal antecedents. In view of the fact that the petitioner is a repeat offender with six similar previous cases and considering the need to prevent further depletion of natural resources, this Court is of the opinion that the grant of anticipatory bail is not warranted. Consequently, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail at this stage.

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 20-04-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Jeni To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Ulunderpet, Kallakurichi District. 2.The Inspector of Police, Edaikkal Police Station, Kallakurichi District. 3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

Jeni 20-04-2026