Krishnamoorthy Vs State rep by The Inspector of Police,

Krishnamoorthy vs State rep by The Inspector of Police,

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Orders Decided Jan 29, 2026

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1417009

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1417009
Court: Chennai Orders High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice K.Rajasekar
Decided On: Jan 29, 2026
Case Number: /1931/2026

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Krishnamoorthy

Respondent

State rep by The Inspector of Police,

Excerpt

.....police for the offences punishable under sections 303, 326(a) of bns act, 2023, and r/w 21(1), 4(1), (1-a), 21(4) of mines and minerals (development and regulation) act, 1957, in crime no.330 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.2. the earlier criminal original petition in crl.o.p.no.29487 of 2025 seeking anticipatory bail has been disposed of by this court by anorder dated 030.10.2025 on the following reasons:“5.considering the fact that the petitioner is not only involved in illegal quarrying but also damaged the ecology and water bodies, and if the anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, he would likely indulge in similar offences in the future, this court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.”3. the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted thatthe co-accused was released on bail on 17.11.2025 and hence, seeks anticipatory bail. per contra, the learned government advocate (crl. side) appearing for the respondent while opposing the anticipatory bail to the petitioner reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that still the case is under investigation.4. heard the submissions made on both sides and perused the materials available on record.5. considering the facts and circumstances of this case, gravity ofoffence, the fact that there is no change in the circumstances, and already dismissed on the ground that he would indulge in similar offences in future, this court is not inclined to revisit the earlier order.6. accordingly, this criminal original petition stands dismissed. ssa to1. the judicial magistrate no.i, tirupattur.2. the inspector of police, (crime no.330 of 2025)3. the public prosecutor, high court of madras.k. rajasekar, j.ssa crl.o.p. no.1931 of 2026

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29.01.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR CRL OP NO.1931 of 2026 Krishnamoorthy S/o.Kannan ... Petitioner/ Accused Vs The State Rep. By, The Inspector of Police, (Crime No.330 of 2025) ... Respondent/Complainant PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, pleased to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest by the respondent police concerned in Crime No.330 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.
For Petitioner : Mr. R.Parthiban For Respondent : Ms.J.R.Archana Government Advocate (Crl.Side) ******

ORDER

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 303, 326(a) of BNS Act, 2023, and r/w 21(1), 4(1), (1-A), 21(4) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, in Crime No.330 of 2025 on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The earlier criminal original petition in Crl.O.P.No.29487 of 2025 seeking anticipatory bail has been disposed of by this Court by an

order dated 030.10.2025 on the following reasons:

“5.Considering the fact that the petitioner is not only involved in illegal quarrying but also damaged the ecology and water bodies, and if the anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, he would likely indulge in similar offences in the future, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.”

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that

the co-accused was released on bail on 17.11.2025 and hence, seeks anticipatory bail. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent while opposing the anticipatory bail to the petitioner reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that still the case is under investigation.

4. Heard the submissions made on both sides and perused the materials available on record.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, gravity of

offence, the fact that there is no change in the circumstances, and already dismissed on the ground that he would indulge in similar offences in future, this Court is not inclined to revisit the earlier order.

6. Accordingly, this criminal original petition stands dismissed. ssa To

1. The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirupattur.

2. The Inspector of Police, (Crime No.330 of 2025)

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

K. RAJASEKAR, J.

ssa Crl.O.P. No.1931 of 2026

Same Court & Year Chennai Orders · 2026 Same Parties Krishnamoorthy vs State rep by The Inspector of Police, Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice K.Rajasekar