Thisainathan v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Pattukottai Taluk
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 21.04.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL CRL OP(MD). No. 7839 of 2026 1.Thisainathan 2.Manikandan ... Petitioners Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Pattukottai Taluk Police Station, Thanjavur District.
(Crime No.101 of 2026)
...Respondents/Complainant
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Veerapandiselvaraj 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. 101 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.
ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Section 303(2) of BNS, 2023 r/w Section 21(1) 1/5
of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 in Crime No.101 of 2026, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on secret information the respondent police went to the scene of occurrence and found that the petitioner along with other accused were involved in illegal transportation of 5 units of gravel sand. Hence, the case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and they were falsely implicated in this case and they are in no way 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 petitioners.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submits that the offences are grave in nature. The petitioner is involved in theft of valuable minerals. He opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The petitioner has one previous case. Hence, the case.
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 2/5
6. Considering the rival submissions on either side and the nature of offences charged against the petitioners, considering that the minerals were seized along with the vehicle and though the petitioner has one previous cases, he was granted bail in that case also, and also considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to the following conditions: [a] Accordingly, the petitioners 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, Pattukottai and on further conditions that:
[b] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of thirty days, thereafter as and when required for interrogation;
[c] the petitioners shall not commit any offences of similar nature.
[d] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.
[e] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness 3/5
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 petitioners 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) 21.04.2026 TM To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Pattukottai.
2.The Inspector of Police, Pattukottai Taluk Police Station, Thanjavur District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
4/5
P. DHANABAL, J.
TM
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No. 7839 of 2026 Date : 21.04.2026 5/5