(1.) Chennai witnessed two daring daylight bank robberies in a short span of time. First one on 23.1.2012 at about 1.30 p.m. at Bank of Baroda, Perungudi Branch and the second one on 20.2.2012 at around 2 p.m. at Indian Overseas Bank, Keelkattalai Branch. While in the first incident, at gun point, an armed group of four persons decamped with cash of Rs. 19 lakhs, resulting in registration of a case in Cr. No. 72 of 2012 on the file of Thuraipakkam Police Station under Section 392 IPC read with Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act, based on the complaint of the Branch Manager, in the second incident, a five member armed gang decamped with a cash of about Rs. 14 lakhs, resulting in registration of a case in Cr. No. 348 of 2012 on the file of Madipakkam Police Station under Section 395 IPC read with Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act on the complaint lodged by the senior Manager of the said Bank. While so, according to police, special teams were formed to identify and arrest the culprits involved in the case and in the course of investigation, they have also collected certain video footages, which were identified by the bank employees. While so, on 22.2.2012, on the information furnished by the house owner, the police came to know that the accused identified in the video footage and four other North Indians were staying in a house at Tamil Nadu Housing Board Colony, Velachery and therefore, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Guindy Range and the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Madipakkam Range proceeded to the place around 11.15 p.m. on that day and mounted surveillance in the area. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, reached the place. The narration of events by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, in his counter affidavit, as fifth respondent in W.P. No. 4564 of 2012 are extracted hereunder for better understanding:
(2.) This version of the police has been vehemently denied on the part of the petitioners in both the writ petitions by filing these writ petitions, as public interest litigations. According to the petitioners, the entire version of the police is a cock and bull story and it is a clear case of murder committed by the police officials and instead of resorting to the legal methods of apprehending the accused to face trial before appropriate Court of law, the police authorities in these cases resorted to short-cut and barbaric method of elimination of the suspected persons in a fake encounter, thus taking law into their own hands and hence the police officials who involved in the offence of murder of the suspected persons should be booked for committing the offence of murder.
(3.) First of all the above writ petitions, i.e. W.P. No. 4564 of 2012 came to be filed by the petitioner on 24.2.2012, i.e. the very next day the news got published in the news papers 23.2.2012, based on the press meet conducted by the Commissioner of Police and the news reports published. It has, therefore, been commented on the part of the respondents that the said writ petition is a premature one, when the enquiry by the Magistrate under Section 176(1-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is pending and without even verifying the ground realities. After this stance taken by the respondents, the petitioner has again filed another writ petition in W.P. No. 6023 of 2012, once again as Public Interest Litigation, to declare the enquiry conducted by the Magistrate under Section 176(1-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as illegal. In the meantime, since the State Human Rights Commission has taken up the matter and ordered investigation into the matter by Mr. T. Rajendran, IPS, Additional Director General of Police, the petitioner has filed W.P. No. 5181 of 2012 to forbear the said officer from conducting any probe, on the ground that the said officer has already filed a counter in a similar matter before this Court justifying the encounter of two accused persons and therefore, it is very much against the interest of the case to hand over investigation of such a sensitive matter to him.