M.SRINIVASAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU
LAWS(MAD)-2020-6-125
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Decided on June 29,2020

M.SRINIVASAN Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF TAMIL NADU Respondents

JUDGEMENT

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J. - (1.) The petitioners who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 143 , 224 , 225B , 271 , 283 , 294(b) , 341 , 353 , 506(2) of IPC and Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act , 1992 (herein after called as 'TNPPDL Act') in Crime No.158 of 2020, seek anticipatory bail.
(2.) The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint lodged by the Inspector of Police, Kinathukadavu Police Station, alleging that the second accused herein viz., Keerthi Anand was arrested at Valparai in connection with the case in Crime No.946 of 2020 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Kinathukadavu Police Station registered for the offences under Sections 153 & 505(i)(b) of IPC in pursuant to the occurrence took pace on 26.05.2020 alleging that sending false message through whatsapp. Thereafter, he was taken by the defacto complainant in the police vehicle bearing Reg.No. TN66G0118 Bolero Jeep towards the Police Station. When the vehicle was reached at Aliyar forest check post, the petitioners unlawfully assembled there and also violated the government order issued under Section 144 of Cr.P.C., and attacked the police jeep. They also prevented the defacto complainant to do his official duty and pushed him down and thereafter all the accused persons have taken the accused Keerthi Anand in their car bearing Reg.No.TN41 AR 2929 and escaped from the place of occurrence. Hence the complaint.
(3.) Mr.N.R.Elango, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that on the complaint lodged by the Inspector of Police Kinathukadavu Police Station, the present complaint has been registered. In pursuant to the FIR A1, A2 and A9 were arrested and remanded to judicial custody. Subsequently, they were released on bail by this Court in Crl.O.P. No.8790 of 2020 by an order dated 19.06.2020. Insofar as the petitioners are concerned, the third petitioner is arraigned as A3; sixth petitioner is arraigned as A6; 16th petitioner is arraigned as A8; 26th petitioner is arraigned as A4; 27th petitioner is arraigned as A7 and 31st petitioner is arraigned as A5. The other petitioners are also arraigned as accused and no rank was shown in the FIR. They have arraigned as accused under the category of others. 3.1. Admittedly all the petitioners are belongs to political party of DMK and their local leader Keerthi Anand viz., the second accused in this case was arrested in pursuant to the crime No.946 of 2020 on the file of the defacto complainant, which was registered for the offences under Sections 153 and 505(i)(b) of IPC for the occurrence took place on 26.05.2020. The defacto complainant illegally arrested him and as such the petitioners and others questioned the defacto complainant about the illegal arrest. Therefore, there was a wordy altercation between them. Except the offences under Sections 353 , 506(2) of IPC and Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act all other offences are bailable offences. Even as per the case of the prosecution no offences are made out under Section 506(2) of IPC and 3(1) of TNPPDL Act. 3.2. He further submitted that the present case has been registered with the political motivation and the petitioners are nothing to do with the crime as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that, in fact while arresting the said Keerthi Anand, the Sub Inspector of Police, Kinathukadavu Police Station, attacked his parents and as such he lodged complaint against the Sub Inspector of Police and the same was registered in Crime No.919 of 2020 for the offences under Sections 448 and 323 of IPC on the file of the Inspector of Police, Negamam Police Station. In fact, counter complaint also lodged by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kinathukadavu Police Station and the same was also registered in Crime No.918 of 2020 for the offences under Sections 294(b) , 353 and 506(i) of IPC on the file of the very same Police Station. 3.3. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that in the present case no one was sustained injury and while the wordy altercation, there was a fiction full between them. He further submitted that during the pandemic of Corona Virus (Covid-19) situation the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is absolutely not necessary and as such he prayed for anticipatory bail to the petitioners. ;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.