Balamurugan v. The State of Tamilnadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 20/07/2026 PRESENT The HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR

¶1Balamurugan,

¶2Kannan,

¶3Ilavarasu ... Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 Vs The State of Tamilnadu Rep By, The Inspector of Police, Vadamadurai Police Station, Dindigul District. Cr.No.367 of 2026.. ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.R.Alagumani, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.N.Balasubramanian, Counsel for State of TN (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- C-8AB. For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No.367 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent Police for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 111(2)(b), 121(1), 132, 221, 262, 303(2), 351(3) and 109(1) of BNS, 2023, in Crime No.367 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2.The allegation against the petitioners is that they were involved in illegal quarrying and transporting gravel sand. It is further alleged that when the police party intervened to stop the driver and the other persons, these petitioners joined together and threatened the defacto complainant/Sub-Inspector of Police with dire consequences. However, the police have recorded the incident and they demanded that the driver/A1, who was driving the vehicle, stop the vehicle and hand over the lorry along with the gravel. However, A1 drove the vehicle attempted to drop the gravel sand and also drove the vehicle rashly towards the police officials with an intention to murder them. Thereafter, they drove away the vehicle and escaped. Hence, the present complaint has been registered.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that Since the first petitioner is having some previous cases, a false accusation has been levelled against him and the other accused, who are his relatives, have also been falsely implicated in this case. They are ready to cooperate with the investigation. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4.The learned counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side), appearing for the respondent Police, reiterated the prosecution case and produced the copies of the photographs taken at the place of occurrence. It is also stated that the entire occurrence has been videographed. He further submitted that it is a case of illegal quarrying and that when the police officials intervened to stop the vehicle, the petitioners threatened them with dire consequences and also attempted to commit murder by running the lorry over them. The first petitioner is having 42 previous cases. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5.I have heard the learned counsel on either sides and also gone through the FIR, photographs and the other connected materials.

6.It is seen from the photographs that the petitioners are also present at the place of occurrence and that the lorry was also seen dropping the sand on the road. The first petitioner is also having 42 previous cases and he is a habitual offender. In view of the above facts and the discussion made above, if the petitioners are granted anticipatory bail, there is a likelihood of them indulging in similar offences. Hence, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

7.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.

(K R S J)

20.07.2026 vsg TO

¶1The Inspector of Police, Vadamadurai Police Station, Dindigul District.

¶2The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooK.oRAJASEKAR,J., vsg ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooORDER oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooIN oooooooooooooooooooooooooCRLoOP(MD)oNo.14742oofo2026 ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooDateoo:o20/07/2026