A.Perumal v. The State By, Inspector Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13-05-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL A.Perumal ..Petitioner Vs The State by, Inspector of Police Sankari Police Station, Salem District.
Crime No.171 of 2026.
..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 in Crime No. 171 of 2026 pending investigation on the file of Inspector of Police, Sankari Police Station, Salem District.
For Petitioner:
Mr.A.Saravanan For Respondent:
Mr.A.Gopinath, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
The petitioner/accused, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Section 21(1), (4) of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 and Section 303(2) of BNS, in connection with the Crime No.171 of 2026, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was found to be transporting one unit of gravel stones in a lorry bearing registration No.TN-31BE-2838 without obtaining any valid permission. Hence, the complaint.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he seeks anticipatory bail.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent opposed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by reiterating the prosecution case. However, he would submit that no previous cases are pending against the petitioner.
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
6. Considering the nature of the offences, the quantity of minerals involved and the fact that no previous cases are pending against the petitioner, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions.
7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Sankari, on condition that the 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 petitioner shall report before the respondent police, on every Saturday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of four weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation.
[b] the petitioner 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 or tamper with the evidence;
[c] the petitioner shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court;
[d] the petitioner 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 petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself 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 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order LPP To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Sankari.
2. The Inspector of Police Sankari Police Station, Salem District.
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
P.DHANABAL J.
LPP 13-05-2026