Easan Murugasamy @ M.Easan v. State Rep By
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05.02.2026 CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR Crl.O.P.No.2295 of 2026 Easan Murugasamy @ M.Easan ... Petitioner -vsState Rep by, The Inspector of Police, Udumalpet Police Station, Tiruppur District.
(Crime No.24 of 2026) ... Respondent Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.24 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.
For Petitioner :
Mr.M.V.Raghavachari, Senior Advocate for Mr.M.Guruprasad For Respondent :
Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For Intervener : Mr.V.Balamurugan *********
ORDER
The petitioner/A6, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 17.01.2026 for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 191(2), 1/7
126(2), 296(b), 351(2) of BNS and Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss)Act, 1992 in Crime No.24 of 2026, registered on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he, along with his associates, waylaid the vehicle, obstructed its transportation from the poultry farm and also threatened them with dire consequences. Hence, a case has been registered and the petitioners have been arrested.
3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner is alleged to be one of the instigators of the members of the association to block lorries carrying chickens either from farms or from hatcheries to chick 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 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. He further submitted that he is in judicial custody since 13.01.2026. Hence, he prays to grant bail to the petitioner.
4. The learned counsel for the intervener submitted that the petitioner has 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 2/7
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.
5. The learned Government Advocate stoutly objected to the grant of bail and 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. He further submitted that the petitioner instigated the incident and conspired with the other accused. He further submitted that the petitioner has 19 previous cases pending against him. Hence, he opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.
6. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
7. On 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 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 large number of chicks had died, for which the loss estimated Rs.1,00,000/. However, it is now contented that the actual loss is only around 3/7
Rs.40,000/-.
8. Considering 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 serious in nature in connection with the very same dispute, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.
9. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only), to the credit of Crime Number 24 of 2026 and on such deposit and on receipt of proof of payment, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties each, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Udumalpet, Tiruppur District, 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 petitioner shall report before the Gudimangalam Police Station daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of three 4/7
weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation. [c] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;
[d] the petitioner 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 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];
[f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.
05.02.2026 drl 5/7
Note:
1. Registry is directed to forthwith upload this order in the Official Website of this Court.
2. All 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.I, Udumalpet, Tiruppur District.
2.The Inspector of Police, Udumalpet Police Station, Tiruppur District.
3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Vellore, Vellore District.
4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
6/7
K. RAJASEKAR, J.
drl Crl.O.P.No.2295 of 2026 (2/2) 05.02.2026 7/7