Sarathkumar v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Lalgudi
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 27.03.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Sarathkumar
...Petitioners/Accused
Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Lalgudi Police Station Trichy District.
(Crime No. 115 of 2026)
...Respondent/Complainant
For Petitioner :Mr.Lenin Kumar 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. 115 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. 1/7
ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner/accused, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Section 303(2) of BNS, 2023, and Section 21(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, in Crime No.115 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that during patrol duty, the respondent Police found that the petitioner had illegally transported half unit of river sand by using Bolero Pickup van bearing Registration No.TN 49 AZ-9997. 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 2/7
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 connected in the above said incident. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) fairly submits that investigation is pending, however, the petitioner has no previous cases. He further submits that the co-accused was arrested and still in custody. 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 petitioners and the quantity of the 3/7
materials involved in this case, 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 the co-accused was arrested and still in custody and no 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 Judicial Magistrate, Lalgudi, and on further conditions that:
[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police once in a 4/7
week ie., on Every Saturday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of four weeks and thereafter, as and when required for 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 petitioners released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 5/7
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 To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Lalgudi.
2.The Inspector of Police, Lalgudi Police Station Trichy 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. 6052 of 2026 Date : 27.03.2026 7/7