Rajamanickam v. State By, Inspector of Police

ORDER The petitioners, who apprehend arrest in the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 303(2) and 326(a) BNS, in connection with Cr.No.494 of 2025, seek anticipatory bail. The case of the prosecution is that on 26.11.2025, during the routine inspection, it was found that the petitioners were attempting to involve in illegal river sand theft of 5 units in their vehicle. Hence, a case was registered in Cr.No.494/2025 for the alleged offences under Sections 303(2) and 326(a) BNS. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners have been falsely implicated as accused in the case and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the respondent police. Hence, he seeks anticipatory bail. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that the petitioners attempted to involve in illegal river sand theft by their Lorry and the vehicle was seized. Hence he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. Considering the nature of the offence, already all the vehicles and the sand were seized and the fact that there is no previous case pending against the petitioners, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners subject to the following conditions. Accordingly, 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 No.I, Walajah, 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 daily at

10.30 a.m. for a period of 30 days. [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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; [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.

30.12.2025 cgi To

¶1The Inspector of Police, Arcot Town Police Station, Ranipet District.

¶2The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Walajah.

¶3The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court. P.DHANABAL, J.,

cgi/ksa-2

06.

30.12.2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 30.12.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL 1. Rajamanickam 2. Subash ... Petitioners Vs State Rep. by The Inspector of Police Arcot Town Police Station, Ranipet District. (Crime No.494/2025) ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of B.N.S.S., to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.494 of 2025 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioners : Mr. D.Thirumoorthy For Respondent : Mr.S.Udaya Kumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side) *****