Allowed

Ramesh v. The State Rep By its The Inspector of Police

Madras HC16 Jul 2026CRL OP/18755/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail sought for alleged illegal transport of river sand without permit, offences under Sections 303(2) and 326(a) BNS 2023. Court treated theft of natural resources as serious but granted anticipatory bail with conditions including bonds, sureties, and daily police reporting for four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners enlarged on anticipatory bail on bond of Rs.20,000 with two sureties each, subject to surrender within 15 days and daily police reporting for four weeks.

Ramesh Vs The State Rep By its The Inspector of Police — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.18755 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 16.07.2026

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.18755 of 2026

¶6

1.Ramesh 2.Apparasu @ Ammasi ... Petitioners

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Thiruvennainallur Police Station, Villupuram District. Crime No.0381 of 2026

¶9

... Respondent

¶10

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Act, 2023, praying to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.0381 of 2026 pending on the file of the respondent police.

¶11

For Petitioners : Ms.R.Raji For Respondent : Mr.N.Palanivel, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

The petitioners were apprehend arrest for the alleged offence under

¶14

Sections 303(2) and 326(a) of BNS, 2023, in Crime No.0381 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

¶15

1/6

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

Crl.O.P.No.18755 of 2026 2. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners were

¶18

involved in the illegal transportation of one gunny bag of river sand without

¶19

any valid permit or licence by using a two-wheeler and were caught redhanded by the respondent police. Hence, the case.

¶20

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and that they have been falsely implicated in this case. She further submitted that the petitioners are ready to co-operate with the investigation. Hence, she prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶21

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

¶22

Taking into consideration of the totality of the circumstances, this

¶23

Court views the offence of theft of natural resources and its exploitation as serious offence and upon the fond hope that they would mend themselves in future and would not come under the adverse notice of the respondent, this

¶24

Court is inclined to enlarge them on anticipatory bail, subject to certain 2/6

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

Crl.O.P.No.18755 of 2026

¶27

conditions.

¶28

6. Accordingly, the petitioner s are ordered to be released on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before

¶29

the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvennainallur, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a separate bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only), with two sureties each for a

¶30

like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, and on further conditions:

¶31

(a) If the petitioners fails to surrender before the concerned 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;

¶32

(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;

¶33

(c) The petitioners shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. for a period of four weeks;

¶34

3/6

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

Crl.O.P.No.18755 of 2026

¶37

(d) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate actions against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners 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];

¶38

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

16.07.2026

cda

4/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

Crl.O.P.No.18755 of 2026

¶44

¶45

1.The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvennainallur .

¶46

2.The Inspector of Police, Thiruvennainallur Police Station, Villupuram District.

¶47

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

¶48

5/6

¶49

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶50

Crl.O.P.No.18755 of 2026

¶51

C.KUMARAPPAN.J.

¶52

cda

¶53

Crl.OP.No.18755 of 2026

¶54

16.07.2026

¶55

6/6

¶56

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Ramesh v. The State Rep By its The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh v. The State Rep By its The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Udhayavarma Vs The State rep by, The Inspector of Police

Sathish Vs State By its Inspector of Police

M.Akash Vs State Rep. by The Inspector of Police

Ramesh Krishnan Vs The State of Tamil Nadu represented by the Inspector of Police

Gugan @ Guhan Vs State Rep. by The Station House Officer

Kutty @ Selvakumar Vs State Rep by The Inspector of Police