Vasantharaja v. State Rep by the Inspector of Police

ORDER The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offences under Sections 3 of the Tamilnadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss)Act, in Crime No.66 of 2026, on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that there was a dispute between the Page2 of 6 petitioner and the adjacent land owner regarding access to agricultural lands. It is alleged that the petitioner used a JCB machine to remove soil from the Government irrigation canal area and filled his patta land, thereby causing damage to Government property and the canal bank. Hence, the case.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a practicing Advocate owning patta agricultural lands at Kumarathei Village. The petitioner denied the allegations and pleaded not guilty. It was contended that an unauthorised pathway had earlier been formed through the petitioner's land by a neighbouring land owner during the petitioner's absence from the village. After returning, the petitioner merely restored his patta land to its original condition using a JCB machine. The learned counsel further submitted that no damage was caused to any Government land or irrigation canal and that the allegations are false and unsupported by any material. Hence, the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail. He would further submit that the petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court and they are willing to cooperate with the investigation. Hence, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the Page3 of 6 respondent police reiterated the case of the prosecution and vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner submitted that there is a civil dispute between the petitioner and the adjacent land owner. He further submitted that the petitioner had allegedly used a JCB machine to remove soil from Government land and filled his land with the said soil. It was also submitted that the petitioner has no previous criminal case.

5.This Court has considered the submissions made on either side.

¶6Considering the submissions made and the fact that the petitioner is a practising Advocate with no criminal antecedents, and the only allegation against him is that he had allegedly removed soil from Government land and used it for filling his land, this Court is of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to certain following conditions.

¶7Accordingly, 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 is made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kumaratchi, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only), with two sureties each, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, and on Page4 of 6 further conditions:

(a) If the petitioner fail to surrender before the concerned learned 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, as and when required for interrogation;

(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 anticipatory 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 petitioner thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act. 20-07-2026 JRS Page5 of 6 To

1.The Judicial Magistrate, Kumaratchi.

¶2The Inspector of Police Kumratchi Police Station, Cuddalore, Crime No. 66 of 2026.

¶3The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court. CRLoOPoNo.o19145oofo2026 C.KUMARAPPAN,oJ. JRS CRLoOPoNo.o19145oofo2026 20-07-2026 Page6oofo6

Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Vasantharaja S/o. Selvarasu, Kumaratchi, Kattumannarkoil Taluk, Cuddalore 608302. ..Petitioner(s) Vs State Rep by the Inspector of Police Kumratchi Police Station, Cuddalore, Crime No. 66 of 2026. ..Respondent(s) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Act, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No. 66 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, pending investigation. For Petitioner(s): M/S. V.Balamurugan For Respondent(s): MR.N.PALANIVEL, GOVT.ADVOCATE (CRL.SIDE)