M.Vijayakumar v. State Rep.By,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 03-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN M.Vijayakumar S/o.Murugan, No.193, Mel Street, Elathur, Tiruvannamalai, Tamilnadu-606906.

..Petitioner(s) Vs State rep.by, Sub-Inspector of Police, Kalasapakkam P.S.

Tiruvannamalai District, Tamilnadu.

..Respondent(s) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Kalasapakkam Police Cr.No.408/2025 registered u/s.303(2), 326 BNS read with 21(5) Mines and Minerals Development Regulation Act, 1957 on such terms and condition as this Honourable Court. For Petitioner(s):

M/S. RAMESH T K For Respondent(s):

MR.N.PALANIVEL, GOVT.ADVOCATE (CRL.SIDE )

ORDER

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 303(2), 326 BNS, 2023 read with Sections 21(5) of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulations) Act,

1957, in Crime No.408 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner joined hands with other accused involved in illegal quarrying and transporting half a unit of river sand using a Tata Ace bearing registration No.TN-25-AE-4705. Hence, the present complaint was filed.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He stated that the Petitioner transported the sand solely to lay a foundation for construction work and was merely in possession of it. He further submitted that the Petitioner was arrested on the mere presumption of involvement in illegal quarrying, has not committed the alleged offence, is ready to cooperate with the investigation, and is willing to abide by any conditions imposed by this Court. Hence, the counsel sought anticipatory bail for the Petitioner.

4. At this juncture, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police strongly opposed the anticipatory bail application on the ground that the Petitioner has one previous case of a similar nature. This clearly demonstrates that the Petitioner has misused the liberty granted to him. In view of the same, if the Petitioner is enlarged on anticipatory

bail, he may be emboldened to indulge in similar offences in the future without fear of the law. Hence, taking into consideration the interest of society at large, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioner.

5. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 03-06-2026 GBI To 1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kalasapakkam P.S.

Tiruvannamalai District, Tamilnadu.

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

GBI 03-06-2026