Navaneethakrishnan v. The State Rep by

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 10.02.2026 CORAM : THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR Crl.O.P.Nos.2110, 2127 & 2155 of 2026 Navaneethakrishnan ... Petitioner/A1 in Crl.OP.No.2110/2026 Anbalagan

... Petitioner/A2 in Crl.OP.No.2127/2026 Easan Murugasamy @ M.Easan ... Petitioner/A3 in Crl.OP.No.2155/2026 -vs-State Rep by, The Inspector of Police, Negamam Police Station, Coimbatore District. (Crime No.18 of 2026) ... Respondent in all

Crl.Ops. COMMON PRAYER:- Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, to enlarge the petitioners on bail in Crime No.18 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioners : Mr.E.V.Chandru for Mr.R.S.Govarthan (in Crl.OP.Nos.2110 & 2127/26)

: Mr.M.V.Raghavachari, Senior Advocate for Mr.M.Guruprasad (in Crl.OP.No.2155/2026) For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl. Side) (in all Crl.OPs.) For Intervener : Mr.V.Balamurugan (in all Crl.OPs.) COMMON ORDER The matter is listed today under the caption "for being mentioned" at the instance of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶2The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner (in Crl.OP.No.2155 of 2026) submitted that this Court on 05.02.2026 has passed an order in Crl.O.P.Nos.2110, 2127 & 2155 of 2026, wherein it has been wrongly mentioned in para 13(b) that the petitioners 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 and the same needs to be rectified. Hence, he prayed for suitable directions.

¶3Considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner (in Crl.OP.No.2155 of 2026), the para 13(b) is modified as follows:

"13. (b) the petitioners/A1 & A2 (in Crl.OP.Nos.2110 & 2127 of 2026) shall report the Inspector of Police, Negamam Police Station, Coimbatore District, daily at 10.30 a.m, for a period of three weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation and the petitioner/A3 (in Crl.OP.No.2155 of 2026) shall report the Inspector of Police, Gudimangalam Police Station, Tiruppur District, daily at

10.30 a.m, for a period of three weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation. All other conditions remain unaltered".

¶4Registry is directed to carry out the necessary correction in the order copy and issue fresh order copy to the concerned parties.

10.02.2026 drl

K. RAJASEKAR, J. drl To

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

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

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. Crl.O.P.Nos.2110, 2127 & 2155 of 2026

10.02.2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 05.02.2026 CORAM : THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR Crl.O.P.Nos.2110, 2127 & 2155 of 2026 Navaneethakrishnan

... Petitioner/A1 in Crl.OP.No.2110/2026 Anbalagan

... Petitioner/A2 in Crl.OP.No.2127/2026 Easan Murugasamy @ M.Easan ... Petitioner/A3 in Crl.OP.No.2155/2026 -vs-State Rep by, The Inspector of Police, Negamam Police Station, Coimbatore District. (Crime No.18 of 2026) ... Respondent in all Crl.OPs. COMMON Prayer:- Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, to enlarge the petitioners on bail in Crime No.18 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioners : Mr.E.V.Chandru for Mr.R.S.Govarthan (in Crl.OP.Nos.2110 & 2127/26) : Mr.M.V.Raghavachari, Senior Advocate for Mr.M.Guruprasad

(in Crl.OP.No.2155/2026) For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl. Side) (in all Crl.OPs.) For Intervener : Mr.V.Balamurugan (in all Crl.OPs.) ********* COMMON ORDER The petitioners/A1 & A2 (in Crl.OP.Nos.2110 & 2127/2026) were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 13.01.2026 and the Petitioner/A3 (in Crl.OP.No.2155 of 2026) was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 15.01.2026 for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 189(2), 126(2), 296(b), 352 of BNS and Section 5 of TNPPDL Act, in Crime No.18 of 2026, registered on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶2The allegation against the petitioner in (Crl.OP.No.2155 of 2026) is that the petitioner, claiming himself to be the President of the Farmers Association, projected alleged economic distress of poultry farmers by stating that the rearing charges remained stagnant at Rs.6.50 per kg since 2020, despite escalation in input costs, which had increased the cost of production to about Rs.20 per kg, thereby rendering poultry farming economically unviable. Hence, a case has been registered and the petitioner

was arrested.

¶3The allegation against the petitioners in (Crl.OP.Nos.2110 & 2127 of 2026) is that they are the associates of the Farmers Association were involved in a road roko, stopped the lorry causing of 18,000 chicks from the hatcheries to a poultry farm, which resulted in the vehicle being halted for nearly one hour and caused death to 2,000 chicks, which resulted in causing damage to the tune of Rs.1 lakh. Hence, a case has been registered and the petitioners have been arrested.

¶4The learned Senior Counsel in (Crl.OP.No.2155 of 2026) appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is instigated the members of the association to block lorries carrying chickens either from farms or from hatcheries to poultry farms. He further submitted that the petitioner was not at all present at the scene of occurrence. He further submitted that the protest was only to demand an increase in the price of chicks from Rs.6.50 per kg to Rs.22.71 per kg payable to farmers and that no violence was caused to the vehicle or to any person. He further submitted that he is in judicial custody since 15.01.2026. Hence, he prays to grant bail to the petitioner. 5 The learned counsel in (Crl.OP.Nos.2110 & 2127 of 2026) 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 such transport vehicles are always equipped with backup arrangements to meet contingencies such as sudden mechanical failure or breakdown. He further submitted that the allegation that 2,000 chicks died is false. He further submitted that he is in judicial custody since 13.01.2026. Hence, he prays to grant bail to the petitioners.

¶6The learned counsel appearing for the intervener (in Crl.OP.No.2155 of 2026) submitted that the petitioner claiming himself as President of Farmers Protection Association, and 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. He further submitted that the petitioner has 15 previous cases pending against him. Hence, he oppose to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶7The learned counsel appearing for the intervener further submitted that the petitioners have no role in the hatchery business and that the entire poultry farm activities are being carried purely based on the agreement

entered into between the land owners and the hatcheries. He further submitted that, despite having full knowledge of the same, the petitioner interfered and caused disturbance to the regular business activities of the hatchery. He further submitted that a larger conspiracy is involved in this case, and that if the petitioner is granted bail, he would hamper the investigation. Hence, he oppose to grant bail to the petitioners. 8 The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent police (in Crl.OP.No.2155 of 2026) stoutly objected to the grant of bail and submitted that, though the petitioner/A3 was not present at the place of occurrence, he had instigated the incident and conspired with the other accused. He further submitted that the respondent police visited the place of occurrence and collected video recordings, photographs and CCTV footage, which revealed that about 2000 chickens had died, causing a loss valued at approximately Rs.1,00,000/-. He further submitted that the petitioner has 18 previous cases pending against him and that if the petitioner is released on bail, there is a likelihood that he may indulge in similar offence.

¶9The learned Government Advocate further submitted that several cases have been registered across States in respect of similar occurrences and that in the present case, the petitioner, along with other accused, resorted to stopping the movement of the vehicle, thereby causing loss to the

hatchery. Hence, he opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶10Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶11On 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 2,000 chicks had died, for which the loss estimated Rs.1,00,000/. However, it is now contented that the actual loss is only around Rs.40,000/-.

¶12Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly that no person 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 and also considering the period of incarceration, 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 bail to the petitioners with certain conditions.

¶13Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to deposit a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only), each to the credit of Crime Number 18 of 2026 and on such deposit and on receipt of proof of payment,

the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each, with two sureties each, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Pollachi and on further conditions 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 petitioners 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 petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial; [d] the petitioners shall not tamper with the evidence or witness 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 petitioners in accordance with law as if the

conditions have been imposed and the petitioners 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];

[f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.

05.02.2026 drl Note:

¶1Registry is directed to forthwith upload this order in the Official Website of this Court.

¶2All concerned to act on this order being uploaded in Official Website of this Court without insisting on certified hard copies. To be noted, this order when uploaded in the official website of this Court will be watermarked and will also have a QR code.

To

1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Pollachi.

2.The Inspector of Police, Negamam Police Station, Coimbatore District.

3.The Superintendent, Sub Jail, Pollachi.

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

K. RAJASEKAR, J. drl Crl.O.P.Nos.2110, 2127 & 2155 of 2026 (2/2)

05.02.2026