Srinivasan v. The State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 12-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Srinivasan S/o.Appadurai, No. 2/48, Kakangarai Nagar, Kakkangarai Post , Tirupathur District-635 654.

..Petitioner(s) Vs The State Rep. By The Inspector of Police, Kandili Police Station, Tirupathur District.

Crime No.0192 of 2026 ..Respondent(s) Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, praying to enlarge the Petitioner on Anticipatory Bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.0192 of 2026 on the file of the Respondent Police and thus render justice.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr.S.Panneerselvan For Respondent(s):

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

ORDER

The petitioner herein apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 326(a) of BNS r/w 21(1) of

Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, in Crime No.0192 of 2026, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was involved in illegal transportation of 3 units of sand without any valid permit or licence by using a Tipper lorry and that the petitioner was caught red handed by the respondent police. Hence, the case.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in no way connected to this case and he has been falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offences as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police submits that the petitioner is having one previous case of similar nature. He further submits that if the petitioner is enlarged on anticipatory bail, he may abscond and commit similar offences in future as well. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and also perused the records available. 6.From the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), it is seen that the petitioner has previous case against him, which clearly demonstrates that whenever he is granted anticipatory bail by the Courts, he misused the liberty granted to him. In view of the same, if the petitioner is enlarged on anticipatory bail, he may be emboldened to indulge in similar offences in the future without fear of the law. Hence, taking into consideration the interest of Society at large, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail.

7.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 12-06-2026 KMI To 1.The Inspector of Police, Kandili Police Station, Tirupathur District.

2.The Public Prosecutor Madras High Court.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

KMI 12-06-2026