Suresh v. The State Rep. By Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 07.11.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Crl.O.P.Nos.30375 and 30376 of 2025 Suresh ... Petitioner ( in Crl.OP.No.30375 of 2025) 1.Pragash

2. Suresh ... Petitioners ( in Crl.OP.No.30376 of 2025) Vs.

The State rep by Inspector of Police, Virudhachalam Police Station, Cuddalore District.

... Respondent ( in both Crl.OPs') COMMON PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest pending investigation in Crime Nos.663 and 664 of 2025 respectively on the file of the Inspector of Police, Virudhachalam Police Station, Cuddalore District. Crl.OP.Nos.30375 and 30376 of 2025 For Petitioners : Mr.Thirumalaivasan Pachiyappan For Respondent : Mr.S.Udaya Kumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side) 1/6

COMMON ORDER The petitioners, who apprehend arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 326(a), 303(2) of BNS r/w 21(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act in Crime Nos.663 and 664 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 petitioners in both the cases were illegally quarried and transported 4 and 6 units of gravel sand respectively from the Neyveli Thermal Power Station, Neyveli. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have not committed any such offence as alleged by the prosecution and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that there are no previous cases against the petitioners. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 2/6

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that the petitioners in both the cases were illegally quarried and transported 4 and 6 units of gravel sand respectively from the Neyveli Thermal Power Station, Neyveli. He further submitted that the property were seized and there are no previous case as against the petitioners. However, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

7. Considering the nature of offence, the property were seized from the petitioners and no previous cases reported, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to certain conditions.

8. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date on which the order copy made, before the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Virudhachalam on condition that each of the petitioners shall execute separate bonds for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty 3/6

Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction learned Magistrate concerned, and on further condition that: (a) If the petitioners fails to surrender before the concerned Magistrate within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, this order shall stand automatically cancelled;

(b) The sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the application for surety ship (Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019]'. The learned Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one of identify proofs to ensure their identity; (c) The petitioners shall report before the respondent police everyday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation;

(d) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate actions against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners released on anticipatory bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji v. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560]; 4/6

(e)If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act.

07.11.2025 Vv To

1. The Judicial Magistrate-I, Virudhachalam

2. The Inspector of Police, Virudhachalam Police Station, Cuddalore District.

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

5/6

K.RAJASEKAR , J.

Vv Crl.O.P.Nos.30375 and 30376 of 2025 07.11.2025 6/6