Velmurugan v. The State Rep By, the Inspector of Police

ORDER The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 303(2), 325(a) of BNS,2023 read with Section 21(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation ) Act 1957, in Crime No.329 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail. Page2 of 5

¶2The case of the prosecution is that during a routine vehicle check near MRM Rice mill, the respondent police intercepted a tipper lorry bearing Registration No.TN 38 CX 6314 carrying four units of pebbles without valid permission. It is alleged that on seeing the police, the 1st accused and the petitioner fled from the spot. Hence the case.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is no way connected to this case and has been falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offences as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, he prays to grant bail to the petitioner.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent Police would submit that the petitioner is involved in the illegal transportation of natural resources and earlier a case has been registered as against the petitioner which is similar in nature. He would further submit that, in the event of the petitioner being enlarged on anticipatory bail, there is every likelihood of indulging in similar offences in future. Hence, he vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶5I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and also perused the records available. Page3 of 5

6.From the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) and considering his past conduct and previous involvement in similar offences, which clearly demonstrates that whenever they were granted bail by the Courts, they have misused the liberty granted to them. In view of the same, if the petitioners are enlarged on bail, they may be emboldened to indulge in similar offences in future without fear of law. Hence, taking into consideration of interest of the society at large, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail.

7.Accordingly, this criminal original petition stands dismissed. 30-06-2026 JRS Page4 of 5 C.KUMARAPPAN J. JRS To

1.The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Neyvelli.

2.The Inspector of Police Neyveli Township Police Station, Cuddalore. Crime No.329 of 2025

¶3The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court. 30-06-2026 Page5 of 5

Page1 of 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 30-06-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Velmurugan no 95 west street palakollai post virudhachalam Taluk Nadiyapattu, Palakollai Cuddalore ..Petitioner(s) Vs The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police Neyveli Township Police Station, Cuddalore. Crime No.329 of 2025 ..Respondent(s) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Act, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with the complaint in Crime No.329 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner(s): Mr. Vijayakumar Sundarraman For Respondent(s): Ms.R.S.Indira, Govt.Advocate (crl.Side)