Rajendran v. The State Rep. By It'S The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 16.09.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Crl.O.P.No.24444 of 2025 Rajendran ... Petitioner Vs.

State Rep by The Inspector of Police, Kalasapakkam Police Station Tiruvannamalai District.

... Respondent (Cr.No.293 of 2025) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Cr.No.293 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioners : Mr.E.Sathiyaraj Elangovan For Respondent : Mr.S.Udayakumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

O R D E R

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Section 303(2), 326 of BNS Act (corresponding Section 379, 430 of IPC) and Section 21(1) of Mines an Minerals (Development and Regulation Act), 1957 in Crime No. 293 of 2025, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail. 1/6

2. The case of the prosecution is that when the defacto complainant /Assistant Director, Geology Department conducted routine check up, they found that the petitioner was in illegal transportation of 3 units of gravel sand in a lorry bearing registration No.TN 25 CF 0115. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is only a driver and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He also submits that the petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and ready to furnish sufficient solvent sureties for his release. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) for the respondent police, reiterated the prosecution case and submits that the petitioner is a sole accused and had illegally transported 3 units of gravel sand without any permission and he has not come forward to adduce any documents and the possession found to be taken from the public place. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 2/6

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegations, submissions made by learned counsels on either side, considering the fact that the petitioner had illegally transported sand from the public place, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 16.09.2025 nr To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Kalasapakkam, Tiruvannamalai District. 2.The Inspector of Police, Kalasapakkam Police Station Tiruvannamalai District.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

3/6

K.RAJASEKAR , J.

nr Crl.O.P.No.24444 of 2025 16.09.2025 4/6