J.Arjunan Vs State Rep. by

J.Arjunan vs State Rep. by

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Orders Decided Jan 30, 2026

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1419355

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/1419355
Court: Chennai Orders High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice K.Rajasekar
Decided On: Jan 30, 2026
Case Number: CRL OP/2023/2026

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

J.Arjunan

Respondent

State Rep. by

Excerpt

.....of river sand taken from tiruvaikara river, villupuram district, using lorry and hence, this case.3. the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted thatthe petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and has not involved in any of the offence as alleged and is ready to co-operate with the investigation and also ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this court, hence sought for anticipatory bail to the petitioner.4. the learned government advocate (crl. side) appearing forthe respondent while opposing the anticipatory bail to the petitioner reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the petitioner along with the co-accused illegally transported the two units of river sand.5. considering the submissions made on both sides and perused the materials available on record.6. considering the facts and circumstances of this case, gravity ofoffence, nature and quantity involved in this case and considering the fact that huge quantity of the river sand has been transported by the petitioner, and cause damage to river bed and ecology, this court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.7. accordingly, this criminal original petition stands dismissed. ssa to1. the judicial magistrate, vanur.2. the inspector of police, (crime no.10 of 2026)3. the public prosecutor, high court of madras.k. rajasekar, j.ssa crl.o.p. no.2023 of 2026

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 30.01.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR CRL OP No.2023 of 2026 J.Arjunan S/o.Jagadeesan ... Petitioner/ Accused Vs The State Rep. By, The Inspector of Police, (Crime No.10 of 2026) ... 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 arrest by the respondent in Crime No.10 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner : Mr.I.Javid Akbar For Respondent : M/s.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(2) of BNS Act, 2023, and r/w 21(1) Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, in Crime No.10 of 2026 on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The allegation against this petitioner is that, the petitioner

joined hands with the other accused and involved in illegal quarrying and transportation of two units of river sand taken from Tiruvaikara River, Villupuram District, using lorry and hence, this case.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that

the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and has not involved in any of the offence as alleged and is ready to co-operate with the investigation and also ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court, hence sought for anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. 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 the petitioner along with the co-accused illegally transported the two units of river sand.

5. Considering the submissions made on both sides and perused the materials available on record.

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

offence, nature and quantity involved in this case and considering the fact that huge quantity of the river sand has been transported by the petitioner, and cause damage to river bed and ecology, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

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

1. The Judicial Magistrate, Vanur.

2. The Inspector of Police, (Crime No.10 of 2026)

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

K. RAJASEKAR, J.

ssa Crl.O.P. No.2023 of 2026

Same Court & Year Chennai Orders · 2026 Same Parties J.Arjunan vs State Rep. by Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice K.Rajasekar