Kalisamy v. The State Rep. By The Forest Range Office,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 02-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Kalisamy ..Petitioner Vs The State Rep. by The Forest Range Office, Kadambur Range, Sathyamangalam, Erode District.

(O.R. No. 1 of 2026) ..Respondent 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 pending ivestigation in the case of O.R. No. 1 of 2026 on the file of the Respondent.

For Petitioner:

Mr.S.Thirunavukarasar For Respondent:

Mr.N.Palanivel Govt Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 39, 50, and 51(1)(c) of the Wildlife Protection Act. 1972 in O.R. No. 1 of 2026 on the file of the respondent seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is the manufacturer of explosive material and he had placed the same in the Sathyamangalam Reserve Forest Area. It is alleged that a three year old elephant calf has eaten the explosive material and sustained grievous injury and subsequently died. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been implicated based on the confession of A1. He further submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the defacto complainant and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that he is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and ready to co-operate with the investigation. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. At this juncture, the learned Govt Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that this is the 3rd application for anticipatory bail. He further submitted that the above ground has already been agitated in earlier application in Crl.OP.No.8318 of 2026 dated 06.04.2026 and there are no changes in circumstances. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, taking note of the

submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, the submission of the learned Govt Advocate (Crl.Side) is liable to be accepted as this Court could not find any change in circumstances and hence, this Court is of the firm view that the Petitioner does not deserve anticipatory bail.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 02-06-2026 SHL To:

1. The Judicial Magistrate-I, Gobichettipalayam, Erode District

2. The Forest Range Office, Kadambur Range, Sathyamangalam, Erode District.

3. The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras

C.KUMARAPPAN J.

SHL 02-06-2026