Venkatapathi v. State Rep.By

O R D E R The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 303(2) and 326 of BNS Act [Corresponding Sections 379, 430 of IPC] and Section 21(5) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulations) Act, 1957, in Crime No.135 of 2026, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶2The allegation against the petitioner is that he was found transporting 1/4 unit of river sand illegally without valid permit. Hence, the case.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready to co-operate with the investigation. Hence, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and opposed the anticipatory bail application.

¶5Taking into consideration of the totality of the circumstances, this Court views the offence of theft of natural resources and its exploitation as serious offence and upon the fond hope that he would mend himself in future and would not come under the adverse notice of the respondent, this Court is inclined to enlarge him on anticipatory bail, subject to certain conditions.

¶6Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date on which the order copy is made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Polur, Thiruvannamalai District, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only), with two sureties each, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, and on further conditions:

(a) If the petitioner fails to surrender before the concerned learned Magistrate within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, this order shall stand automatically cancelled;

(b) The sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the application for surety ship (Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019]'. The learned Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one of identify proofs to ensure their identity;

(c) The petitioner shall report before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation;

(d) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate actions against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on anticipatory bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji v. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560];

(e) If the petitioner thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act.

09.07.2026 cda To

1.The Judicial Magistrate, Polur, Thiruvannamalai District.

2.The Inspector of Police, Chetpet Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J. cda

09.07.2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 09.07.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Venkatapathi ... Petitioner Vs. The State Represented by, The Inspector of Police, Chetpet Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District. (Crime No.135 of 2026) ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.135 of 2026 on the file of respondent Police. For Petitioner : Mr.E.Sathiyaraj For Respondent : Mr.N.Palanivel, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)