E.Veerapandiyan v. The State Rep By,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 05-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN E.Veerapandiyan S/O Ezhumalai, No.391,Collony Street, Nadiyapattu, Virudhachalam Taluk, Cuddalore District.

..Petitioner(s) Vs The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police, (Crime No.677 of 2025) ..Respondent(s) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in event of the arrest in connection with the Crime No.677 of 2025 on the file of respondent police and thus render justice. For Petitioner(s):

Mr.Balachandran T For Respondent(s):

Mr.N.Palanivel Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 303(2) of BNS 2023, r/w 21(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 in Crime No.677 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner had illegally transported 2 units of pebbles in a tipper 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 the petitioner has one previous case 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 01.12.2025 and 23.03.2026 in Crl.OP.Nos.32800 of 2025 and 7246 of 2026 respectively . 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 petitions, 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 Inspector of Police,

2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

VV 05-06-2026

To The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police, (Crime No.677 of 2025)No, 391, Collony Street,Nadiyapattu,Virudhachalam Taluk,Cuddalore District