VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Madras High Court 2026 › High Court of Madras

Abdul Samathu v. The State of Tamilnadu

GRANTED
Court
High Court of Madras
Decided
20 April 2026
Bench
P.Dhanabalauthor
Case no.
CRL OP(MD) 7588/2026

Judgment

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 20/04/2026 PRESENT The HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL

¶1Abdul Samathu, S/o.Bashkan, No.9/316 Middle Street, Muthukuda, Avudaiyarkovil Taluk, Pudukkottai District..

¶2Abdul Kathar, S/o.Abbas, No.8/39, Middle Street, Muthukuda, Avudaiyarkovil Taluk, Pudukkottai District.. ... Petitioners/Accused No.1 & 2 Vs The State of Tamilnadu, Rep by the Forest Ranger, Aranthani Wild Life Range, Pudukkottai District. (W.L.O.R 07/2025). ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.A.Arul Jenifer for Mr.R.Paranjothi, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.M.Karunanithi, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- C-33AB To enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of his arrest in W.L.O.R.No.07/2025 on the file of the respondent/Forest Ranger and thus render justice. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners/A1 and A2, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 9, 39(1)(a),

(b), (d), 39(3), a, b, c=, 40(2), 50 and 51(2) of the Wild Life Protection Amendment Act, 2022, in W.L.O.R.No.07 of 2025 on the file of the respondent/Forest Ranger, seek anticipatory bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that on

24.12.2025, at about 07.00 a.m., when the respondent/Forest Ranger went to patrol duty, they found that the petitioners illegally transported sea cucumber in a stolen bike. Hence, the case.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they were falsely implicated in this case and they are no way connected in the above said incident. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent Police would submit that the petitioners have one previous cases. He would further submit that the investigation is pending and the offences are grave in nature. Hence, he opposes to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶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 and also considering the fact that the alleged occurrence took place on

24.12.2025 and no steps have been taken so far to secure the accused and though the petitioners have one previous case, they were granted bail, and the material part of the investigation might have been completed and and hence, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, 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) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Aranthangi, and on further conditions that: [b] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police daily at

10.30 a.m., for a period of 30 days and 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/petitioners thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S. (P D B J)

20.04.2026 VSG TO

1.The learned Judicial Magistrate, Aranthangi.

2.The Forest Ranger, Aranthani Wild Life Range, Pudukkottai District.

¶3The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. P. DHANABAL,J., vsg ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.7588 of 2026 Date : 20/04/2026

Source: High Court of Madras, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.