Ganesan v. State Rep By, Inspector Of Police,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 17.09.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Crl.O.P.No. 25245 of 2025 Ganesan ... Petitioner/A6 Vs.
State Rep by The Inspector of Police, Maruvathur Police Station Perambalur District In Crime No. 118 of 2025.
...Respondent
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.118 of 2025 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Selvakumar 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 Sections 303(2), of BNS, Section 21(1) of MMDR Act, 1957, 9(B)(1)(b) of Indian Explosives Act, 1884 and section 5 of Explosives Substances Act, 1908, in Crime No. 118 of 2025, on 1/6
the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that the de-facto complainant is the Village Administrative Officer of Senguram Village. He lodged a complaint before the respondent police stating that the petitioner and others supplied of explosives substances used for illegal mining of granite stones and quarrying was carried out in the patta land of one Thiagarajan by using 125 kilo grams of RDX explosives. The petitioner, who was running Amman Explosives Stores, is alleged to have supplied explosives to the petitioner herein who in turn supplied them to the other accused for stone blasting. Hence the case.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a licensed explosive merchant who had a contractual agreement only with one Gunasekaran and had no dealings with the other accused persons. He further submits that the other co-accused were arrested and released on bail, based on the confession statement given by them, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the petitioner an employee under Gunasekaran, misused the explosives. He 2/6
further submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed 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 huge quantity of RDX has been dealt with by the petitioner and others without obtaining any proper license from the Government. He further submits that investigating is on. Hence, he strongly opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5. Considering the fact that huge quantity of RDX-125 explosives has been dealt with by the petitioner illegally and considering the nature of allegations against him and the fact that the investigation in this case is yet to be concluded, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 3/6
17.09.2025 MSM 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.2, Perambalur.
2.The Inspector of Police, Maruvathur Police Station Perambalur District In Crime No. 118 of 2025.
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. K.RAJASEKAR , J.
4/6
MSM Crl.O.P.No.25245 of 2025 17.09.2025 5/6