SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 74681

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr.Justice P. DHANABAL
Jayaprakash – Appellant
Versus
State Rep by Inspector of Police – Respondent



##PAGE1##

CRL OP No.35550 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 30-12-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL

CRL OP No. 35550 of 2025

Jayaprakash

S/o.Gandhi,

No.4/78, Mariyamman Temple Street,

P.Kuchipalayam, Pidagam, Villupuram District.

Petitioner(s)

Vs

State represented by

The Inspector of Police,

Villupuram Taluk Police Station,

Villupuram District.

Crime No. 794 of 2025

Respondent(s)

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of B.N.S.S. to grant

anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the event of his arrest in Crime No.794 of

2025 pending on the file of the respondent.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.Muruganandham K.

For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Udaya Kumar

Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

1 / 6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/01/2026 04:13:44 pm )

##PAGE2##

CRL OP No.35550 of 2025

ORDER

The petitioner/accused, who apprehends arrest in the hands of the

respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 303(2) and 326(a)

of B.N.S. in connection with the Crime No.794 of 2025, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is the owner of the

Force Mini Lorry bearing Registration No.TN-32-F-7034 and it is alleged that

the driver of the vehicle along with other accused, on inspection, was found in

possession of ½ unit of river sand in the aforesaid vehicle. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the

material objects have been seized, custodial interrogation is not required in this

case. He further submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this

case and he is innocent of the offences as alleged. Hence, he seeks anticipatory

bail.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the

respondent police reiterated the case of the prosecution and submitted that the

sand along with the vehicle has been seized by the respondent police. He would

further submit that there are some previous cases pending against the petitioner

and hence, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

2 / 6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/01/2026 04:13:44 pm )

##PAGE3##

CRL OP No.35550 of 2025

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the rival submissions on either side and nature of

offences, the fact that the material objects were seized by the respondent police

and since the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required for the

purpose of investigation and further, considering that though the petitioner has

some previous cases, in all of the cases, he has been released on bail, I am

inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to the following

conditions.

7. Accordingly, this criminal original petition is allowed and the

petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his/her

appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order

copy made ready, before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Villupuram, on

condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/-

(Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the

satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that:

[a] the petitioner and the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left

Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of

their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police every

Saturday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of four weeks and thereafter as and

3 / 6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/01/2026 04:13:44 pm )

##PAGE4##

CRL OP No.35550 of 2025

when required for interrogation;

[c] the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement,

threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to

dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

[d] the petitioner shall not leave India without the previous permission of

the Court;

[e]

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top