Chanduru @ Sandiran v. The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 30.10.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Chanduru @ Sandiran ... Petitioner Vs.

The State Rep. By, The Inspector of Police, Peranamallur Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District.

Crime No.192 of 2025 ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.192 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner :

Mr.C.Pushparaj For Respondent :

Mr.S.Udayakumar, Government Advocate (Criminal Side) 1/6

O R D E R

The petitioner was apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 303(2), 326(a) of BNS r/w Section 21(5) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, in Crime No.192 of 2025, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner had illegally transported 1/4 unit of river sand in a bull cart. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner is ready and willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police while opposing the anticipatory bail to the petitioner reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the petitioner herein had illegally transported 1/4 unit of river sand. He further submitted that the 2/6

petitioner has 10 previous cases and the investigation of this case is pending.

5. Heard the learned counsels on either side and perused the materials available on record.

6. This Court had already dismissed the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.25235 of 2025, dated 15.09.2025, by stating the following reasons:

"4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) submitted that the petitioner is involved in three previous grave cases and this is the third case registered against him. Hence, he opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Heard the learned counsels on either side and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the antecedents of the petitioner, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed."

7. Considering the fact that the petitioner is a habitual offender with 10 previous cases and that sand was illegally taken from a river, thereby damaging the river bed, affecting the ecology and water body and taking into account that this Court, by order dated 15.09.2025, had already dismissed Crl.O.P.No.25235 of 2025 filed by the petitioner, and this is the second anticipatory bail petition with no change in circumstances, this Court is of the 3/6

considered view that granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner may result in petitioner involve in similar offences hence, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail.

8. Accordingly, this criminal original petition stands dismissed. 30.10.2025 cda 4/6

To 1.The Inspector of Police, Peranamallur Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District.

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

K.RAJASEKAR, J.

cda 5/6

30.10.2025 6/6