Ramalingam v. State By,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 04.11.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR CRL.O.P.No.29866 of 2025 Ramalingam ... Petitioner

Versus

The State rep by its, The Inspector of Police, Thatchampattu Police Station, Thiruvannamalai District.

(Crime No.124 of 2025) .. Respondent Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of B.N.S.S., to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.124 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner :

Mr.S.Silambu Selvan For Respondent :

Mr.S.Udaya Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

O R D E R

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest by the respondent police for the offences punishable under Section 303(2), 329(3), 324(4), 351(2) of BNS in Crime No.124 of 2025 seeks anticipatory bail. 1/4

2.The allegation against the petitioner is that, taking advantage of the absence of the defacto complainant, the petitioner had taken away 200 lorries of red sand from her land, thereby damaging the patta land and causing a huge revenue loss to the defacto complainant. The value of the red sand is around Rs.14 lakhs. Hence, the complaint. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that he is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the petitioner had illegally quarried a large quantity of red sand from the defacto complainant's land to the tune of Rs.14 lakhs. Hence, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) and perused the materials available on record.

2/4

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, the fact that the petitioner was involved in illegally quarrying huge quantity of red sand and the value involved, this Court is of the view that, at this stage, if the petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to indulge in similar activities. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 04.11.2025 drl To 1.The Inspector of Police, Thatchampattu Police Station, Thiruvannamalai District.

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

3/4

K.RAJASEKAR, J.

drl CRL.O.P.No.29866 of 2025 04.11.2025 4/4