Ponraj Vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Ettayapuram

PRAYER :-Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of arrest in Crime No.240 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, or on their appearance.

¶14

For Petitioners : Mr.V.Muthulakshmi

¶15

For Respondent : Mr.J.Vishnu, Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

¶16

1/5

¶17

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

¶18

CRL OP(MD). No.15506 of 2026

¶19

ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

¶20

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest in connection with Crime

¶21

No.240 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 21(4) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, seek the relief of anticipatory bail.

¶22

The case of the prosecution is that, on 12.06.2026 at about 13.30 hours, acting on secret information, the respondent police found the accused illegally excavating and transporting 1/2 unit of gravel sand, allegedly quarried from a waterbody, in a tractor without obtaining the requisite permission. Hence, the respondent police registered the present case against the accused.

¶23

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that a false case has been foisted against the petitioners. He further submitted that there are no previous cases against the petitioners. He also submitted that the petitioners are ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation and abide by any condition that may be imposed by this

¶24

2/5

¶25

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

¶26

CRL OP(MD). No.15506 of 2026

¶27

Court. Hence, he prayed for the grant of anticipatory bail.

¶28

Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the alleged sand have already been seized. He further submitted that there are no previous cases against the petitioners. However, he contended that, if the petitioners are granted anticipatory bail, they may indulge in similar offences in future. Therefore, he opposed the grant of anticipatory bail.

¶29

This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.

¶30

Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, the fact that the alleged sand was illegally quarried from a water body, and the further allegation that such illegal quarrying has caused damage to the ecology, the water body, and the environment, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

¶31

pal

¶32

3/5

¶33

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

¶34

CRL OP(MD). No.15506 of 2026

¶35

To

¶36