Archunan v. State Represented By, The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 22.09.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Crl.O.P.No.25937 of 2025

1. Archunan

2. Arumugam ... Petitioners Vs.

State Rep by The Inspector of Police, Ulundurpet Police Station, Kallakurichi District.

... Respondent (Crime No.449 of 2025) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.448 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioners : Ms.R.Poornima For Respondent : Mr.S.Udayakumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Section 303(2) of BNS Act and Section 21(1) of the Tamilnadu Mines and Minerals (Development and 1/4

Regulation) Act, 1987 in Crime No.448 of 2025, on the file of the respondent Police, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that based on the secret information, the respondent police went to the scene of occurrence and found that the petitioner had illegally quarried six units of lake sand from the Moolasamuthiram Lake and transported the same by using two Tipper lorries. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any such offence as alleged by the prosecution and they have been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the 1st petitioner is having two previous cases. He further submitted that the first petitioner is only arrayed as an accused and the second petitioner is not arrayed as an accused. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegations, submissions made by learned counsels on either side, the 2/4

petitioner had illegally quarried and transported sand from the lake and taking note of the fact the first petitioner is having two previous cases and the second petitioner is not arrayed as an accused in this case. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 22.09.2025 Vv To

1. The Judicial Magistrate-I, Ulundurpet.

2. The Inspector of Police, Ulundurpet Police Station, Kallakurichi District.

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

3/4

K.RAJASEKAR , J.

Vv Crl.O.P.No.25937 of 2025 22.09.2025 4/4

5/4