High CourtsSingle Bench(2026) 07 MAD CK 0196

Manikandan vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Madras High Court, Madurai Bench · Decided on 27 July 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
K. Rajasekar, J.
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
CRL OP(MD)No.15377 of 2026

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 336 words

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest in connection with Crime No.422 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.

2.

The case of the prosecution is that, on 30.06.2026 at about 01.27 p.m., based on the information furnished by the Special Revenue Inspector, Department of Geology and Mining, the respondent police intercepted the accused and found him in possession of 4 units of river sand, which had allegedly been illegally quarried from the Kaveri River and transported in a tipper lorry without obtaining the requisite permission. Consequently, the respondent police registered the present case against the accused.

3.

The 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.

4.

Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the alleged sand have already been seized. He further submitted that there are no previous cases against the petitioner. However, he contended that, if the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, he may indulge in similar offences in future. Therefore, he opposed the grant of anticipatory bail.

5.

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

6.

Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, the fact that the alleged sand was illegally quarried from a water body, and the further allegation 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.