T V Gopi v. State, Rep. By The Sub Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 05-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN T V Gopi, S/o.Varadhan, PROPRIETOR O F SRI SRINIVASA ENTERPRISES Aged about 52 years, 70/D,Brindhavanam Street, Poonga Nagar,Kakkalur, Thiruvallur District, Tamil Nadu-602 001.

..Petitioner(s) Vs State, rep. by The Sub Inspector Of Police, Thiruthani Police Station, Thiruvallur District.

(Crime No.160 of 2026) ..Respondent(s) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, to enlarge the Petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with in Crime No.160 of 2026 on the file of respondent Police and thus render justice. For Petitioner(s):

Mr.Sasikumar R For Respondent(s):

N.Palanivel, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 303(2) and 326 of BNS 2023, r/w 21(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 in Crime No.160 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner had illegally transported 8 units of gravel sand in a lorry. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court and that he is ready to co-operate for investigation. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and, upon instructions, submitted that there are two previous cases against the petitioner and has doing similar nature offences. He further submitted that the petitioner's earlier anticipatory bail petition was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 16.04.2026 in Crl.OP.No.9404 of 2026. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent.

6. From the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) it is pellucid that the petitioner has misused the liberty which had been granted by this Court in earlier point of time. Hence, this is not a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail and there is no change of circumstances after the dismissal of the petitioner's earlier anticipatory bail petition, Hence, this Court is of the firm view that the petitioner do not deserve anticipatory bail.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 05-06-2026 VV To

1. The Sub Inspector Police Thiruthani Police Station, Thiruvallur District.

2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

VV 05-06-2026