Muruganantham v. State of Tamilnadu Rep by Inspector of Police, Ayakudi

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 10.04.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL CRL OP(MD). No. 7207 of 2026

1.Muruganantham

2.Gnanavel ... Petitioners

Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Ayakudi Police Station, Dindigul District. (Crime No.103 of 2026)

...Respondents/Complainant

For Petitioners : Mr.K.Muthu Ganesa Pandian

Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.P.Kottai Chamy Government Advocate (Crl. side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :-For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No. 103 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 303(2) of BNS, in Crime No.103 of 2026, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that on 09.04.2025 the accused persons involved in illegal transportation of sand. Hence, the Village Administrative Officer made the complaint against the accused persons. On the basis of the above said complaint the present case has been registered.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and they were falsely implicated in this case and they are in no way connected in the above said incident. They have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. The land belongs to the petitioners. There is no recovery from these petitioners. Hence, he prays to grant Anticipatory Bail to the petitioners.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submits that the offences are grave in nature. The petitioners are involved in theft of valuable minerals. He vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Investigation is still pending. The petitioners have no previous case.

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

¶6Considering the rival submissions on either side and the nature of offences charged against the petitioners, even according to the prosecution, the land is belongs to the petitioners, there is no previous case against the petitioners, and also considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to the following conditions: [a] Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on anticipatory bail on condition to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Palani, Dindigul District and on further conditions that: [b] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police, at 10.30 a.m., on every Saturday for a period of four weeks, thereafter, as and when required for interrogation; [c] the petitioners shall not commit any offences of similar nature. [d] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial. [e] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial. [f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial 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]. [g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.

(P D B J)

10.04.2026 TM To

1.The Judicial Magistrate, Palani, Dindigul District.

2.The Inspector of Police, Ayakudi Police Station, Dindigul District. (Crime No.103 of 2026)

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

P. DHANABAL, J. TM ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No. 7207 of 2026 Date : 10.04.2026