Rajeshkumar v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Thiruppachethi
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 27.03.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Rajeshkumar
...Petitioners/Sole Accused
Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Thiruppachethi Police Station Sivagangai District.
(Crime No. 53 of 2026)
...Respondent/Complainant
For Petitioner :Mr.R.Balamuruganantham Advocate.
For Respondent :Mr.M.K.Karunanithi Government Advocate (Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No. 53 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.
1/7
ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Section 303(2) of BNS and Seciton 21(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, in Crime No.53 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner had illegally transported five units of river sand by using tipper lorry. Hence, the case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle and he was not present in the scene of occurrence. He would further submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he was falsely implicated in this case and he is no way 2/7
connected in the above said incident. They have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) fairly submits that the petitioner has no previous cases. However, 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 considering the fact that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle and even as per the FIR, the driver of the vehicle transported sand and the petitioner was not present in the scene of occurrence and no 3/7
previous case is pending against the petitioner, 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 District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruppuvanam, sivagangai District, and on further conditions that:
[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders.
[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 4/7
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 petitioners 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) 27.03.2026 vsg 5/7
To 1.The learned District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruppuvanam, sivagangai District.
2.The Inspector of Police, Thiruppachethi Police Station Sivagangai District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
6/7
P. DHANABAL, J vsg
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No. 6051 of 2026 Date : 27.03.2026 7/7