Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 30229 (MAD)

Senthil v. State rep.by,

CRL OP/13077/2026 · 2026-06-05

C Kumarappan

Transfer Petitionbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

CRL OP No. 13077 of 2026 __________ Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 05-06-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN CRL OP No. 13077 of 2026 Senthil ..Petitioner(s) Vs State rep.by, The Inspector of Police, Anakkavoor Police Station, Thiruvannamalai District. Cr.No.29 of 2026. ..Respondent(s) Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of BNSS, pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.29 of 2026 on the file of the Respondent police. For Petitioner(s): Mr.Appaswamee VR For Respondent(s): M/s.R.S.Indira Government Advocate (Criminal side) ORDER The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offences under Sections 303 (2) and 326 (a) of BNS, in Crime No.29 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail. 2.The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was involved in illegal transportation of 2 units of river sand without any valid permit or licence and that the petitioner was caught red handed by the respondent police. Hence, the case. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 13077 of 2026 __________ Page2 of 4 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that he is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and that he is ready to cooperate with the investigation. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 4.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and, upon instructions, submitted that two previous cases have been registered against the petitioner. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 5.From the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side), it is pellucid that the petitioner has misused the liberty which had been granted by this Court in earlier point of time. Hence, this is not a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, this Criminal Original petition is dismissed. 05-06-2026 ep https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 13077 of 2026 __________ Page3 of 4 To 1.The Inspector of Police, Anakkavoor Police Station, Thiruvannamalai District. 2.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 13077 of 2026 __________ Page4 of 4 C.KUMARAPPAN, J. EP CRL OP No. 13077 of 2026 05-06-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis