Paneerselvam v. The State

Crl.O.P.No.426 of 2026IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 12.01.2026CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE K. RAJASEKARCRL OP NO.426 of 2026 Paneerselvam S/o.Sadasivam... Petitioner/ A2VsThe State Rep. By,The Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri Taluk Police Station, Krishnagiri District. (Crime No. 480 of 2025)... RespondentPRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, pleased to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest by the respondent in Crime No.480 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner : Mr.E.KannadasanFor Respondent : Ms.J.R.Archana Government Advocate (Crl. Side)******

O R D E R The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 5 and 6 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908, in Crime No.480 of 2025 on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.426 of 2026 2. The allegation against this petitioner is that, while conducting a raid, the respondent police came to know that the petitioner has sold the explosive substances by violating the relevant rules to the owners of the land. Hence, this case. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case; that the petitioner herein is license holder of storing and selling the explosives and go on to the site and involve in blasting works for digging well and road construction and other agricultural work and so on as per the request made by the owner of the land and after his blasting work, he receives the payment and other than that, he has not involved in any other illegal offences as alleged by the prosecution; and that the petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court, hence sought for anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent while opposing the anticipatory bail to the petitioner reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the other accused who were arrested had given a statement that this petitioner is the one who has sold the 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.426 of 2026explosive substances to the owner of the land and that the investigation of this case is pending and that the petitioner is the main accused in this case. 5. Considering the submissions made on both sides and perused the materials available on record. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, gravity of offence, the petitioner and other accused had actively participated in illegal supply of explosives and taking note of the fact that the investigation of the case is pending and the fact that if the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, he will indulge in similar offences, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.