Kavin v. State Rep. By, Inspector of Police,

ORDER The petitioners/ accused, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Section 303(2) of BNS/379 of IPC and Section 21(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957, in connection with the Crime No.363 of 2026, seek anticipatory bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners were found to be transporting three units of gravel soil in a tipper lorry bearing registration No.TN-37-EB-4699 without obtaining any valid permission. Hence, the complaint.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and they have been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he seeks anticipatory bail.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent opposed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners by Page3 of 6 reiterating the prosecution case. However, he would submit that no previous cases are pending against the petitioners.

¶5Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶6Considering the nature of the offences, the quantity of minerals involved and the fact that no previous cases are pending against the petitioners, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to the following conditions.

¶7Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the Judicial Magistrate, Sulur, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a separate bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that: [a] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police, on every Saturday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of four weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation. Page4 of 6 [b] the petitioners shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; [c] the petitioners shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court; [d] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial. [e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560]. [f] If the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.2023. 13-05-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order LPP Page5 of 6 To

1.The Judicial Magistrate, Sulur

¶2The Inspector of Police, Sulur police station Coimbatore District.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. CRLoOPoNo.o12308oofo2026 P.DHANABALoJ. LPP CRLoOPoNo.o12308oofo2026 13-05-2026 Page6oofo6

Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 13-05-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL 1. Kavin 2. Manikandan ..Petitioners Vs State rep. by, Inspector of Police, Sulur Police Station, Coimbatore District. (Crime No. 363 of 2026) ..Respondent Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, to enlarge the Petitioners on anticipatory bail, in the event of their arrest by the Respondent Police in the case pending investigation in Crime No.363 of 2026 dated 28.04.2026 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Sulur Police Station, Coimbatore District, and thus render justice. For Petitioners: Mr.D.Alexis Sudhakar For Respondent: Mr.A.Gopinath, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) Page2 of 6