Lakshmi v. The State Rep. 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.26039 of 2025

1. Lakshmi

2. Arun Kumar ... Petitioners Vs.

The State Rep by The Inspector of Police, R-9, Valasaravakkam Police Station, Chennai.

... Respondent (Crime No.416 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 his arrest in connection with Crime No.416 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioners : Mr.Saritha Sivakumar 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 Sections 21(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 r/w Section 303(2) of 1/4

BNS, 2023 in Crime No.416 of 2025, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks 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 when the petitioner had illegally quarried 3 units of ordinary sand and transported the same in a Lorry. Hence, the case.

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

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the 1st petitioner is the owner of the lorry and the 2nd petitioner is the driver of the said lorry. He further submitted that A1 and A2 were absconded. However, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence, submissions made by learned counsels on either side, the petitioner had illegally quarried and transported ordinary sand, the petitioner is having two previous cases and the bad antecedents and hence, this Court 2/4

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.

Poonamalle.

2. The Inspector of Police, R-9, Valasaravakkam Police Station, Chennai.

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

K.RAJASEKAR , J.

Vv 3/4

Crl.O.P.No.26039 of 2025 22.09.2025 4/4

5/4