Mathi v. The State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 14-05-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Mathi ..Petitioner(s) Vs The State rep. by the Inspector of Police, SIPCOT P.S.
Ranipet District , (Crime No.122/2026) ..Respondent(s) PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, praying to grant Anticipatory Bail to the petitioner in the event of his arrest or on surrender before any court in connection with the case in Crime No. 122 of 2026 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police and thus render justice.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.C Harish For Respondent(s):
Mr.S.Balaji Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
ORDER
The petitioner who apprehends 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 in Crime No. 122 of 2026, seeks anticipatory bail.
2.The case of the prosecution is that on 28.04.2026 at about 14:45 hrs, during a routine patrol, the respondent police found four persons loading river sand into a red color Mahindra Truck without a number plate. On seeing the police, the accused persons abandoned the vehicle along with a Splendor motorcycle and escaped from the scene of occurrence. Upon inspection, the police found one unit of river sand loaded in the vehicle. Further enquiry revealed the involvement of the petitioner (Mathi) along with co-accused Rajsekar, Santhosh, and Sakthivel in transporting illegally mined sand without valid permission. Hence the case.
3.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person, he was not present at the scene of occurrence, and there was no direct recovery of any material from him. He further submitted that his vehicle was misused and he has been falsely roped into this case. He stated that this is the first anticipatory bail application before this Court and no similar petition is pending before any other court. He admitted that the petitioner has some cases of a similar nature pending against him, but emphasized that bail has already been granted to him in all those previous cases. He added that the petitioner is the sole breadwinner of his family and is ready to cooperate fully with the investigation and abide by any conditions imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed anticipatory bail for the petitioner.
4.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the petitioner is involved in illegal river sand mining and transportation. He further confirmed that the petitioner has some previous cases of a similar nature pending against him. However, he conceded that the petitioner has already been granted bail in all those previous cases. Hence, he vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the Petitioner.
5.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 6.Considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, the nature of offences, the fact that the vehicle and contraband have already been seized by the respondent police, and also the fact that the petitioner has already been granted bail in all his pending previous cases of a similar nature, 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 learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Ranipet 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 10.00 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 her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; [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 BNSS, 2023.
14-05-2026 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 District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Ranipet.
2.The Inspector of Police, SIPCOT P.S.
Ranipet District.
3.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.
P.DHANABAL, J.
SHA 14-05-2026