Sethu v. The State Of Tamilnadu Rep. By

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 06.04.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Sethu @ Sethuraman ..Petitioner/Sole Accused Vs 1.State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Thiruvadanai Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.

(Crime No.61 of 2026 .. Respondent For petitioner :Mr.D.Venkatesh Advocate.

For Respondent :Mr.P.Kottai Chamy Government Advocate (Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No.61 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner/Sole Accused, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent for the 1/8

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.61 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 25.03.2026, at about 07.00 p.m., the defacto complainant/Village Administrative Officer, had received a secret information and based on that, the defacto complainant along with police official went to the occurrence place and they found that the petitioner illegally transported one unit of river sand by using Tractor and trailer bearing Registration No.TN 63 V-7322 without any valid permission. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he was falsely implicated in this case 2/8

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) appearing for the respondent Police would submit that the petitioner had illegally transported one unit of river sand without any permission. He would further submit 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 the quantity of the materials involved in this case, and also 3/8

considering the fact that the petitioner have no previous cases, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions:

[a] Accordingly, the petitioner are ordered to be released on anticipatory bail on condition to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvadanai, and on further conditions that:

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent Police once in a week ie., on Every Saturday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of four weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation.

4/8

[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 tamp er 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 5/8

SCW 5560].

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

(P D B J) 06.04.2026 vsg 6/8

To 1.The learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvadanai. 2.The Inspector of Police, Thiruvadanai Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.

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

7/8

P. DHANABAL, J., vsg

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No. 6555 of 2026 Date : 06.04.2026 8/8