Mandharasalam v. State Rep.By, the Inspector of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 05-02-2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR CRL OP Nos.2039, 2040, 2433, 2607 & 2611 of 2026 Mandharasalam Petitioner/A2 in Crl.OP.No.2039/2026 S.Panjalingam Petitioner/A3 in Crl.OP.No.2040/2026

1.Velgesh @ Velkesh V. Petitioners/A4,A5 & A7

2.Varatharaj @ Varadaraj in Crl.OP.No.2433/2026

3.Subramani @ Subramaniam Easan Murugasamy @ M.Easan Petitioner/A1 in Crl.OP.No.2607/2026 ABT Mahalingam @ M.Mahalingam Petitioner/A2 in Crl.OP.No.2611/2026 Vs The State Represented by The Inspector of Police Sulthanpettai Police Station, Coimbatore District. Crime No.10 of 2026. Respondent in Crl.OP.Nos.2039, 2040 2607 of 2026 The Inspector of Police, Gudimangalam Police Station, Tiruppur District. Crime No.10 of 2026 Respondent (in Crl.OP.Nos.2433 & 2611/2026) COMMON PRAYER : Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.10 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner(s): Mr.P.Balamurugan (in Crl.OP.Nos.2039 & 2040 of 2026) Mr.A.M.Natraj (in Crl.OP.Nos.2433 & 2611) Mr.V.Raghavachari, Senior Advocate for Guruprasad Manoharan (in Crl.OP.No.2607 of 2026) For Respondent(s): Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl.side) (in all Crl.OPs.) For Intervener: Mr.V.Balamurugan (in all Crl.OPs) COMMON ORDER In Crl.OP.Nos.2039, 2040 & 2607 of 2026

: The petitioner herein apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 126(2), 296(b), 351(2) of BNS and Section 5 of TNPPDL Act, in Crime No.10 of 2026, on the file of the respondent police. In Crl.OP.Nos.2433 & 2611 of 2026: The petitioner herein apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 126(2), 296(b), 351(2) and Section 5 of the Public Property (Prevention of Damage & Loss) Act, 1992 in Crime No.10 of 2026, on the file of the respondent police.

¶2The allegation against the petitioners is that they along with their associates, waylaid the lorry and obstructed the transportation of chicks from the hatchery to the poultry farm, damaged vehicles, and threatened that no chicks should be transported without their permission. Hence, a case has been registered against the petitioners.

¶3The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the alleged occurrence is taken place at Coimbatore during night hours and therefore, there was no occasion for any disturbance to the chicks due to temperature variation. He further submitted that the petitioner was not at all present at the scene of occurrence. He further submitted that the alleged loss of chicks was valued at Rs.3,57,000/-, out of which Rs.2,00,000/- has already been recovered from other accused persons, who were released on bail. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶4The learned counsel appearing for the intervener submitted that under the guise of espousing farmers' demands, the petitioner has been indulging in organised criminal activities across the Coimbatore region, with the object of obstructing poultry farming business for unlawful financial and social gains. He further submitted that, if the petitioner is granted bail, he is likely to indulge in similar activities. Hence, he oppose to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶5The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that 0-day old chicks, approximately 23,220 in number, were transported to contract farms and upon inspection, 6,120 chicks were found dead due to suffocation and stress, causing a loss of Rs.3,67,200/-. He further submitted that the petitioner (in Crl.OP.No.2607 of 2026) has 19 previous cases pending against him. He further submitted that the investigation is at preliminary stage. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 6 Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶7On perusal of the FIR and other connected materials, it is revealed that the vehicle was being transported and that the persons who intercepted the lorry only demanded that the driver to take back the vehicle and did not resort to any violence against the driver. It is further stated that the driver stopped the vehicle for about one hour, and subsequently, when the chicks were unloaded, it was found that about 6,120 chicks had died, for which the loss estimated Rs.3,67,200/.

¶8Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly that no one was injured in this case and that the case pertains only to a road roko, which resulted in some revenue loss on account of the death of certain chicks, though it is stated that there are previous cases against the petitioner and that the offences are series in nature in connection with the very same dispute, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions.

¶9Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to deposit a sum of Rs.8,000/- each (Rupees Eight Thousand only) to the credit of Crime No.10 of 2026 before the concerned Court. On such deposit, the petitioners are ordered to be released on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sulur, (in Crl.OP.Nos.2039, 2040 & 2607 of 2026) and Judicial Magistrate No.II, Udumalpet, Tiruppur District (in Crl.Op.Nos.2433 & 2611 of 2026) on condition that the petitioners shall execute a separate bond for a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only), each with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that:

(a) 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, daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of three weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation.

(c) the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

(d) the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

(e) on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/ Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji Vs. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560]; and;

(f) if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S. 05-02-2026 drl To

1.The Inspector of Police Sulthanpettai Police Station, Coimbatore District.

¶2The Inspector of Police, Gudimangalam Police Station, Tiruppur District.

3.The Judicial Magistrate, Sulur

4.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Udumalpet, Tiruppur District.

5.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras. K.RAJASEKAR,oJ., drl CRLoOPoNos.2039,o2040,o2433,o2607o&o2611oofo2026 (2/2)

05.02.2026 Pageo8oofo8