Ravuther @ Ravuther Naina Mohamed v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police.
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 10.06.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Ravuther @ Ravuther Naina Mohamed
...Petitioner/Accused
Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Sundarapandia Pattinam Police Station Ramanathapuram.
(Crime No. 57 of 2026 )
...Respondent
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Chellapandian Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr.N.Balasubramanian Counsel for State of TN (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No. 57 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.
ORDER : The Court made the following order :- 1/7
The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 303(2) of BNS, 2023 and Section 21(4) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act in Crime No. 57 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 04.04.2026, at about 04.30 a.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 petitioners and other accused persons illegally transported Savudu sand by using 6 tractors bearing Registration No.TN65 BA-9796 Mahindra 475 Tractor along with Tailor, TN65 BC1107 Mahindra Yuva Tech Tractor along with Tailor, TN 49 BY-1210 Mahindra 475 Tractor along with Tailor, TN 64 AH 7233 Messey Fergusion Tractor along with Tailor, TN 65 BA-9754 Mahindra Yuva Tech Tractor along with Tailor and unregistered new Holland Tractor along with Tailor each loaded with 1⁄2 unit of Savudu Sand. Hence, the case.
2/7
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit 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 would further submit that the co-accused were granted anticipatory bail. Hence, he prayed to grant Anticipatory Bail to the petitioner.
4. The learned Counsel for State of TN (Crl.Side) would submit that based on the complaint given by the defacto complainant, a case has been registered for the offences punishable under Sections 303(2) of BNS, 2023 and Section 21(4) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act in Crime No. 57 of 2026. He would further submit that the petitioner has no previous case. He would further submit that the investigation is pending and the offences are grave in nature and hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
6. Considering the rival submissions made on either side and the 3/7
nature of offences charged against the petitioner, and considering the the quantity involved in this case and also considering the facts that the petitioner has no previous case and co-accused were granted anticipatory bail, 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 bail in the event of arrest or on his/her appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvadanai, on condition that the petitioner shall 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 concerned and on further conditions that:
[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police, on every Saturday at 10.30 a.m. for a period of four weeks, and thereafter as and when required for the interrogation.
4/7
[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) 10.06.2026 apd 5/7
To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvadanai.
2.The Inspector of Police, Sundarapandia Pattinam Police Station Ramanathapuram.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
6/7
P. DHANABAL, J apd
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No. 10443 of 2026 Date : 10.06.2026 7/7