Abt Mahalingam @ M. Mahalingam (Male, 46 Years), v. The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police,

ORDER The petitioner, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 126(2), 296(b), and 351(2) of BNS, 2023 @ 191(2), 126(2), 296(b) and 351(2) of BNS and section 5 of TN PPDL Act, 1992 @ section 191(2), 126(2), 296(b), 351(2) and 49 of BNS and section 5 of TNPPDL Act, 1992, in Crime No.40 of 2026, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The allegation against the petitioner is that he along with his associates, waylaid the lorry and obstructed the transportation of chicks from the hatchery to the poultry farm, damaged vehicles which resulted in causing death of 9,860 chicks. Hence, the case has been registered.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the alleged loss of chicks he is ready to pay part of some amount to compensate the damages, further it is submitted that loss of chicks is exaggerated. Therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that 0-day old chicks, approximately 30,000 in number, were transported to contract farms and Page3 of 6 upon inspection, 9,860 chicks were found dead due to suffocation and stress. Hence, she vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

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

¶6On 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 9,860 chicks had died.

¶7Considering 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, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

¶8Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) to the credit of Crime No.40 of 2026 before the concerned Court. On such deposit, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Page4 of 6 Judicial Magistrate, Avinashi, Tiruppur District, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only), with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, and on further condition:

(a) If the petitioners fails to surrender before the concerned Magistrate within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, this order shall stand automatically cancelled;

(b) The sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the application for surety ship (Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019]'. The learned Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one of identify proofs to ensure their identity;

(c) The petitioner shall report before the respondent police everyday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of three weeks.

(d) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate actions 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 v. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560];

(e) If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS. 23-02-2026 MPA Page5 of 6 To

1.The Judicial Magistrate, Avinashi, Tiruppur District.

¶2The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Avinashi Police Station, Tiruppur District Crime No 40 of 2026.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. CRLoOPoNo.o4345oofo2026 K.RAJASEKAR,oJ. MPA CRLoOPoNo.o4345oofo2026 23-02-2026 Page6oofo6

Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 23-02-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR ABT Mahalingam @ M. Mahalingam (Male, 46 years), Son of Muthusamy, 152, West Thottam, Kandiyankovil, Tiruppur District-641665 ..Petitioner(s) Vs The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Avinashi Police Station, Tiruppur District Crime No 40 of 2026152, west thottam, kandiyanakovil,tiruppur districk -641665 ..Respondent(s) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the Petitioner on Anticipatory Bail in the event of his arrest or remand in Crime No.40 of 2026 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Avinashi Police Station, Tiruppur District, on such terms and conditions as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper and thus render justice. For Petitioner(s): A.M.Natraj For Respondent(s): M/S.J.R.Archana Government Advocate (Crl.Side) Page2 of 6