Abdul Vahab v. The State of Tamil Nadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 21.01.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY

¶1Abdul Vahab

¶2Abdulkalam . ..Petitioners/ Accused Vs State of Tamil Nadu Rep by the Forest Ranger, Thangachimadam, Ramanathapuram District. (STOR.No.01 of 2025) ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioners : Mr.G.Aravinthsamy Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.S.S.Manoj Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in S.T.O.R.No.01 of 2025 on the file of the respondent. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners / Accused who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offence punishable under Sections 35, 35(b), 41 of TNFA Act 1882 Rules 2 and 9 of TN Timber Transit Rules and Sections 41(3), 41(a), 49 of Indian Forest Act 1972, in S.T.O.R.No.01 of 2025 on the file of the respondent, seek anticipatory bail,

¶2The prosecution case is that the petitioners along with other accused persons had illegally transported 1 ½ ton of sheep log. Hence, the complaint.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further contended that the petitioners were falsely implicated in the case solely on the basis of the confession of the co-accused. It was also submitted that the petitioners had already been granted anticipatory bail by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvadanai, and that they had duly complied with the conditions imposed by the lower Court. However, owing to certain unavoidable circumstances, the petitioners were unable to appear before the lower Court on 26.08.2025, and consequently, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvadanai, cancelled the anticipatory bail on the ground of their non-appearance. He further submitted that the petitioners are ready and willing to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he seeks anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that the petitioners have not complied with the conditions as imposed by the lower Court and the petitioners have involved in very serious offence. Hence, he strongly objected to the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶5Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the petitioners have involved in very serious offence. Therefore, anticipatory bail is not maintainable. The petitioners are directed to surrender before the concerned court and to obtain a regular bail.

¶6Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. (S S Y J)

21.01.2026 msrm To

1.The learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvadanai.

2.The Forest Ranger, Thangachimadam, Ramanathapuram District.

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

S.SRIMATHY,J msrm

ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.23418 of 2025

21.01.2026