Munish Alias Muniyasamy Pandy v. State of Tamilnadu Rep by Inspector of Police, Nainarkoil

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 27.07.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR Munish @ Muniyasamy Pandy ... Petitioner / Accused No.2

Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by the Inspector of Police, Nainarkoil Police Station, Ramanathapuram District. (Crime No.159 of 2026) ... Respondent/Complainant PRAYER :-Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of arrest in Crime No.159 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, or on his appearance. For Petitioner : Mr.Kannan Gurusamy

For Respondent : Mr.J.Vishnu Government Advocate (Criminal Side) ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner, who apprehends arrest in connection with Crime No.159 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 21(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, seeks the relief of anticipatory bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that, on 17.07.2026 at about 13.00 hrs, while the respondent police were on regular patrol duty, they found the accused illegally excavating and transporting savudu sand, allegedly quarried from Gangaikondan Meikkal Oorani, using a JCB without obtaining the requisite permission. Hence, the respondent police registered the present case against the accused.

¶3The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that a false case has been foisted against the petitioner. He further submitted that there are no previous cases against the petitioner. He also submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation and abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed for the grant of anticipatory bail.

¶4Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) produced a copy of the proceedings issued by the Block Development Officer (BDO), informing the petitioner about the cancellation of the permit. He further submitted that copies of the cancellation order had also been communicated to the concerned officials. According to the learned Government Advocate, despite having knowledge of the cancellation of the licence, the petitioner continued to excavate and transport sand illegally from the water body. Therefore, he contended that the petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail and sought dismissal of the petition.

¶5This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.

¶6Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, the materials placed before this Court, and the specific allegation that the petitioner continued to excavate and transport sand illegally from the water body even after the cancellation of the licence and also taking into account that such illegal quarrying has caused damage to the ecology, the water body, and the environment, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

27.07.2026 pal To

1.The Inspector of Police, Nainarkoil Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.

2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. CRLoOP(MD)No.15106oofo2026 oK.oRAJASEKARoo,Jo. ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooopal ORDER oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooIN oooooooooooooooooooooooooCRLoOP(MD)oNo.15106oofo2026 Dateoo:o27.07.2026