M.Pon Raja Suresh v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Vellichanthai

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 26.03.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL M.Pon Raja Suresh

...Petitioner/Accused

Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Vellichanthai Police Station, Kanyakumari.

(Crime No. 31 of 2026 )

...Respondent

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Arul Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.M.Karunanithi Government Advocate (Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No. 31 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.

1/6

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 303(2) r/w Section 21(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act in Crime No. 31 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 19.03.2026, based on the secret information, when the respondent police was conducting raid, they found that the petitioner had removed excess quantity of sand on a patta land. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated in this case and he is no way connected in the above said incident. He has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submits that the petitioner is the licence holder to excavate the sand. Hence, he prays to grant Anticipatory Bail to the petitioner.

2/6

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) fairly admits that the petitioner is a licence holder and however, he excavated the sand exceeding the permitted limit and the petitioner has no previous case. Hence, he opposes to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

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

6. Considering the rival submissions on either side and the nature of offences charged against the petitioner, and also considering the facts that the petitioner is the licence holder and he has no previous case, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions:

[a] Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on anticipatory bail on condition to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel, and on further conditions that: [b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police, on first day of every English calender month at 3/6

10.30 a.m. for a period of three months and thereafter as and when required for the interrogation.

[c] the petitioner shall not commit any offences of similar nature.

[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

[e] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial. [f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560].

[g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.

(P D B J) 26.03.2026 apd 4/6

To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel.

2.The Inspector of Police, Vellichanthai Police Station, Kanyakumari.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

5/6

P. DHANABAL, J apd

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No. 5959 of 2026 Date : 26.03.2026 6/6