Sri Ramakrishnan v. State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 13-05-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL

1. Sri Ramakrishnan

2. Dhamodaran

3. Mr.Muga Venkata Reddy ..Petitioner(s) Vs State Rep. by The Inspector of Police B-2, Thiruvallur Taluk Police Station, Thiruvallur District.

(Crime No. 105 of 2026) ..Respondent(s) PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, praying to enlarge the Petitioner on bail in the event of the arrest in Crime No. 105 of 2026 on the file of the Respondent and thus render justice. For Petitioner(s):

Mr.M.Abi For Respondent(s):

Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

The petitioners / Accused, who apprehend arrest in the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 303(2) and 326(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023, read with Section 21(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, in connection with Cr. No. 105 of 2026, seek anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 11.04.2026 at about 04:30 p.m., the de-facto complainant, working as the Assistant Director of the Department of Geology and Mining, Villupuram Circle, conducted a routine inspection and vehicle check-up in the Tirupachur and Kaivandur areas of Tiruvallur District. During the check, two vehicles were found transporting river sand without any valid government permission or transit pass. Upon interception, the petitionerdriver of the lorry bearing Registration No. AP 07 TF 9319 jumped out of the vehicle and fled the scene. The second vehicle bearing Registration No. AP 27 TZ 1669 along with its driver, and the abandoned vehicle, were subsequently secured and brought to the station. Hence, the case. 3.

The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this crime. He submits that the vehicles and the sand have already been seized and secured by the respondent police, rendering custodial interrogation unnecessary. He further points out that there are no previous cases or criminal antecedents pending against them. Since the petitioners are fully prepared to cooperate with the investigation and offer substantial solvent sureties, the learned counsel prays for the grant of anticipatory bail.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police opposed the grant of anticipatory bail, highlighting the illegal

transit of river sand across state borders using multiple commercial vehicles. He, however, confirms that both vehicles have already been secured at the police station and that no previous cases are recorded against either of these petitioners.

5.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 6.Considering the rival submissions on either side, the nature of the offences, and taking note of the fact that the commercial vehicles along with the mineral cargo have already been seized and secured by the prosecution, and considering that there is no previous case pending against the petitioners, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners by prescribing a regular reporting schedule to facilitate the ongoing investigation. 7.Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Tiruvallur, on condition that each petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that:

[a] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.00 a.m. for a period of 30 days, and thereafter as and when required for investigation.

[b] the petitioners shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; [c] the petitioners shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court;

[d] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial. [e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court themselves as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560].

[f] If the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S. 2023.

13-05-2026 SHA

Note:

1. Registry is directed to forthwith upload this order in the Official Website of this Court.

2. All concerned to act on this order being uploaded in Official Website of this Court without insisting on certified hard copies. To be noted, this order when uploaded in the official website of this Court will be watermarked and will also have a QR code.

To:

1.The Judicial Magistrate-I, Tiruvallur.

2.The Inspector of Police B-2, Thiruvallur Taluk Police Station, Thiruvallur District.

3.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.

P.DHANABAL, J.

SHA 13-05-2026