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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 25.09.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Crl.O.P.No.22831 of 2025

1. Ganesan

2. Sanjivkumar @ Sanjiv

3. Rajendran 4, Aurlmani ... Petitioners Vs.

The State Rep by Inspector of Police, Veeraganur Police Station, Salem District.

... Respondent (Crime No.123 of 2025) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.123 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioners : Mr.Prabhakaran Karuppannan For Respondent : Mr.S.Udayakumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side) 1/5

ORDER

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 296(b), 115(1), 351(3) and 303 (2) of BNS 2023 and Section 21(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act 1957 in Crime No. 123 of 2025, on the file of the respondent Police, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The allegation against the petitioners is that they have joined hands with other accused, attempted to involve in loading and unloading of soil from the Puliyankurichi Lake by using Tractor and JCB, the same was objected by the defacto complainant and others. Due to which, the petitioners have joined together, abused and assaulted the defacto complainant and his brother with iron rod and caused severe injuries.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that they are innocent persons and they have not committed any such offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that though it is alleged that the petitioners were involved in loading and unloading soil from the Puliyankurichi lake, no vehicle used for transporting the sand was seized by the respondent police. On that ground, the other accused were released on 2/5

bail. He further submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed that anticipatory bail may be granted to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and reported that all the above accused names were mentioned in the FIR and they have attacked the defacto complainant and others, since they are objected to take the soil from the Puliyankurichi lake. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. Considering the manner in which the occurrence had taken place and the fact that they were involved in illegal transportation of sand from the lake by using JCB and Tractor and when it was objected by the defacto complainant and others, the petitioners have attacked the defacto complainant and others and also caused damage to ecology, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 25.09.2025 Vv 3/5

To 1.The Inspector of Police, Veeraganur Police Station, Salem District.

2.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras, Chennai 600 104.

K.RAJASEKAR , J.

4/5

Vv Crl.O.P.No.22831 of 2025 25.09.2025 5/5

6/5