Thirupathi, v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Rajathani
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 11/06/2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Thirupathi ... Petitioner/Sole Accused Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep by, The Inspector of Police, Rajathani Police Station, Theni District.
Crime No. 223 of 2026. ... Respondent/Complainant PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No. 223 of 2026 on the file of the respondent Police.
For Petitioner : P Thanga Prithvi Rajan, Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr.G.Ganesh Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) ORDER : The Court made the following order :- 1/6
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, 1957, in Crime No.223 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 22.05.2026, at about 12.05 p.m, the Revenue Inspector attached to the Department of Geology and Mining, Theni District along with the inspection team, conducted a vehicle check up near Kathirnarasingapuram and intercepted the Tractor bearing Reg.No.TN-51-AF-2326 and found that the petitioner illegally transported 1 1⁄2 units of river sand in each vehicle. Hence, the case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioner is an innocent and has was falsely implicated in this case and he has no way connected in the above said incident. He would further submit that no previous case is pending against the petitioner. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 2/6
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that the petitioner illegally transported 1 1⁄2 unit of river sand and the investigation is still pending. Hence, he opposes to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. He would further submit that the petitioner has no previous case.
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 minerals involved in this case and the petitioner has no previous case, 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 3/6
learned Judicial Magistrate, Andipatti, and on further conditions that:
[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police, every Saturday at 10.30 a.m. for a period of four weeks, and thereafter as and when required for the 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 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 4/6
be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.
11.06.2026 dss To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Andipatti.
2.The Inspector of Police, Rajathani Police Station, Theni District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
5/6
P. DHANABAL,J dss
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD)No.10731 of 2026 Date : 11/06/2026 6/6