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

Vinoth Kumar v. State of Tamilnadu Rep by Inspector of Police, Kandavarayanpatti

GRANTED
Court
High Court of Madras
Decided
25 June 2026
Bench
P.Dhanabalauthor
Case no.
CRL OP(MD) 12352/2026

Follow Madras High CourtFollow P.Dhanabal

Judgment

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 25/06/2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL

¶1Vinoth Kumar

¶2Poobathi

... Petitioners/Accused No.1&4 Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep by, The Inspector of Police, Kandavarayanpatti Police Station, Sivagangai District. Crime No.63 of 2026. ... Respondent/Complainant PRAYER :-For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No.63 of 2026 on the file of the Respondent Police. For Petitioners : R.Ilayaraja, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.N.Balasubramanian, Counsel For State of TN (Crl.Side) ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Section 303(2) of BNS, 2023, r/w 21(4) of Mines and Minerals (Development of Regulation) Act, 1957, in Crime No.63 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that on 17.06.2026 at about

07.00 a.m, the defacto complainant, who is the Village Administrative Officer, Karaiyur and his Assistant were in surveillance, they intercepted the Tipper Lorries bearing Reg.No.TN-38-BE-2255 and TN-48-L-1323 near

Poovanayaki Amman

Temple

and

found

that the accused illegally transported 2 units of sand in each lorry without any valid license. Hence, the case.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent 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 Counsel For State of TN (Crl.Side) would submit that the offence committed by the accused is grave in nature and the investigation is still pending and the first petitioner has 3 previous cases and the second petitioner has no previous cases. 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 the quantity of minerals involved in this case and the mines involved in this case was already seized along with the vehicles and the second petitioner has no previous case and though the prosecution stated that the first petitioner has 3 previous cases, in those cases, he was released on bail, 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 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 learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruppathur, Sivagangai District, on condition that the petitioners shall 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 concerned and on further conditions that: [b] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police, every Saturday at 10.30 a.m. for a period of four weeks, and thereafter as and when required for the 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)

25.06.2026 dss To

1.The Judicial Magistrate, Thiruppathur, Sivagangai District.

2.The Inspector of Police, Kandavarayanpatti Police Station, Sivagangai District.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. CRLoOP(MD).oNo.12352oofo2026 ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooP.oDHANABAL,J oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooDSS ooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooORDER oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooIN oooooooooooooooooooooooooCRLoOP(MD)oNo.12352oofo2026 ooooooooooooooooooooooooooDateoo:o25/06/2026

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.