Judgment · High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 12-01-2026CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKARCRL. OP. No.36059 of 2025 Sathishkumar ….PetitionerVsThe State Represented by The Sub-Inspector of Police, Valasaravakkam Police StationChennaiCrime No.542 of 2025. ..RespondentPRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of arrest in connection with Crime No.542 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner: Mr.V.ManimaranFor Respondent: Ms.J.R.Archana, Government Advocate (Crl.side)ORDERThe petitioner, who apprehends arrest by the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 303(2) of BNS Act (379 of IPC) r/w Section 21 (1) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, in Crime No.542 of 2025, seeks anticipatory bail. Page 1 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with others is alleged to have transported ten units of sand in a lorry without any valid license. Hence, the case.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the petitioner is the driver of the vehicle in which ten units of sand was transported illegally and the same has been seized. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) and perused the materials available on record. Page 2 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegations and the submissions made by learned counsels on either side, and the fact that the petitioner had allegedly indulged in illegal quarrying activities, causing damage to the ecology, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to this petitioner.