kanchi-sathya.org - information on the kanchi seer, latest news on the the seer trial, facts about the kanchi mutt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

(Criminal Jurisdiction)

Friday, the twenty eighth day of January two thousand five

PRESENT

THE HONORABLE THIRU JUSTICE M.THANIKACHALAM

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION NO.430 & 607/2005

1. T.A.RANGANATHAN (PETITIONERS/ACCUSED)
2. R.SESHADRI IN CRL.O.. 430/2005

1. R.MUTHUKRISHNAN (PETITIONERS IN CRL.O.P.607/05
2. V.SELVAM

Vs.

INSPECTOR OF POLICE, (RESPONDENT IN BOTH THE PETITIONS)
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION TEAM
D.F.C.BUILDING, KANCHEEPURAM
CR.NO.NOT KNOWN OF 2004

For Petitioners : M/S R.RAJENDRAN, ADVOCATE (IN BOTH THE PETITIONS)

For Respondents: MR.V.JAYAPRAKASH NARAYANAN, GOVT.ADVOCATE (CRL.SIDE)

PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C.

ORDER : The Court made the following order:-

Petitioners in both the criminal original petitions were arrayed as accused in order No. 1670 of 2004 on the file of the Thousand Lights Police Station for the alleged offence said to have been committed by them, along with others, under Sections 324 and 307 IPC. Though originally, a case has been registered by Thousand Lights police, since for the incident that had taken place within its jurisdiction, for the reasons best known to the police within its jurisdiction, for the reasons best known to the Police or the investigating agency, now the case has been transferred to the respondent, for further investigation, probably because of the involvement of certain important persons serious offence or otherwise, as the case may be, which I am not concerned at present.

2. The Petitioners, apprehending that they would be taken into custody, for the alleged offences, under Sections 324 and 307 IPC, and with a view to avoid unnecessary harassment of arrest, have filed the above petitions, for anticipatory bail, pleading innocence alleging, that they are respectable persons, that they have no connection of anything, either with the complainant, or in the alleged incident.

3. Opposing the anticipatory bail petitions, detailed counters have been filed, wherein it is stated inter alia that the de-facto complainant was the target of attempt to commit murder, on 3.8.2004, not only by these petitioners, but also by some other accused, who had actually committed the offence and to that effect, there are materials by way of statements recorded under Section 162 Cr.P.C. and confession statement of some other accused.

4. It is the further case of the investigating agency, that the petitioners being influential persons are likely to tamper with the witnesses and therefore, the release of the petitioners on anticipatory bail, is not desirable, considering the seriousness of the offence, and the further fact, that their custodial interrogation is also necessary to reach the legal end of the investigation, properly.

5. The incident had taken place on 3.8.2004 at about 9.30 a.m. in Grahams Road at Madras. At the time of the incident, it seems that defacto complainant was travelling in his two wheelers. In the said incident he sustained some injuries also for which he had taken treatment, in the Apollo hospital and discharged in August 2004 itself. The de-facto complainant, thereafter kept quiet not suspecting any foul play while sustaining the injuries and not suspecting any other hands also for his injuries and all of a sudden, wisdom dawn upon his mind on 3.11.2004 to tender a complaint, as if he was the target of attack aiming his life for that, these petitioners are also responsible. On the basis of the complaint, given by the defacto complainant Thirukottiyur Madhavan, a case has been registered as referred above, which is under investigation in the hands of the respondent police.

6. In order to ascertain or at least to see a prima facie, whether Thirukottiyur Mahavan would have been the target of attack, that too aiming his life on 3.8.2004 at about 9.30 a.m. , we have to see the history behind the alleged attack as narrated by the de-facto complainant.

7. Inside the Thirukkurangudi Perumal Temple, there was a Siva temple also. The villagers of Thirukarungudi had decided to renovate the temple. At that time, at somebody’s advice, with the consent of the villagers or otherwise, it was decided to shift the Siva Temple, from the precinct of Vaishnava temple, leading to some troubles, resulting in some litigations also including civil dispute also which are not so germane at present to decide this petition. The removal of Siva temple from the Precinct of Perunal temple at Thirukkarungudi, was not to the liking of the de-facto complainant.

8. On 28.7.2004, according to the defacto complainant when he visited Thirukarungudi along with one Krishnamachariar and represented before the Jeer Swamy concerned, about the demolition and shifting of lord Shiva Temple, Mr.Ranganathan, the first petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.430/95 warned him that he should not interfere in this matter, since the shifting had been done as per the order of Periyaval, for which Jeer Samy had also agreed, that too with the consent of H.R. & C.E. Commissioner. Further, it is the case of the complainant, he was threatened that if he interferes with this matter, despite the warning, he will have to meet the severe consequences. According to the defacto complainant, Ranganathan did not stop with that, but showing some persons, informed the defacto complainant, that they are hirelings and warned him, with dire consequences. It is also further averred in the complaint, even thereafter i.e, 31.7.2004, his friend Ravichandran contacted him over phone, warned him not to go in two wheelers and if he proceeds, he should be more cautious.

9. If the above facts narrated in the complaint, are true to the knowledge of the defacto complainant, since he claims a pious Vaishnavaite devotee he would have suspected, at the time of the incident itself that he was the target, only at the instigation of Ranganathan or because of his questioning about the removal of Shiva Temple in the precinct of Vaishnava temple. In that case, immediately he ought to have preferred a complaint that atleast suspecting, after the incident, whether it is a road accident fall or actually assaulted by some of the assailants using iron rod, as claimed very belatedly giving unexplained doubt. Curiously the defacto complainant, who claims that he had knowledge about the threat, made by the first petitioner by name Ranganathan, has preferred the complaint only on 3.11.2004, that too when some of the accused in some other case had been arrested and said to have given some confession statements, inter-linking this incident also, as if Kanchi Periyaval is the cause. The inordinate and unexplained delay creates an unerasable doubt in the minds of the court, whether the defacto complainant would have been the target of the assault on 3.8.2004 for his questioning the removal of Lord Shiva Temple from the precinct of Perumal Temple at Thirukkarungudi.

10. The Complaint reads that the defacto complainant was powerfully attacked with an iron rod, which caused him unconscious and somebody taking him to Appollo Hospital for treatment. He was treated in the Appollo Hospital from 3.8.2004 and discharged on 7.8.2004. For not preferring the complaint forthwith, an explanation is sought to be offered, as if fearing that police complaint may bring more danger to him, he did not give any complaint to the police immediately. If it is so it is unexplained at present, who has given the protection to prefer the complaint and at whose instance, the complaint was given, by the defacto complainant, as if the petitioners are the cause for sustaining injuries, by the defacto complainant on 3.8.2004.

11. It is the usual practice, whenever, a person who sustained injuries unnaturally or otherwise, was taken to hospital, the doctors concerned used to enquire the matter and make references in the Accident Register, as well as in the wound certificate also, probably, anticipating lego medical case. If the injured was conscious, the doctors used to enquire him, record the statement given by the injured. On the other hand, if the injured was unconscious, not capable of explaining what had happened to him, then the doctors used to enquire the person who accompanied the injured or who admitted the injured in the hospital regarding the incident, such as how the injured sustained injuries and on that basis, they use to make reference about the origin of injuries. Having the above said facts in mind, we have to see the medical certificate of the defacto complainant.

12. Concededly Shri Madhavan the defacto complainant was admitted in the Appollo Hospital for treatment, for the injuries sustained by him on 3.8.2004, whoever may be the cause at the time of the admission, the patient was conscious, and he was not suffering from any fever, for which we find specific reference in the accident/injury report pertaining to the defecto complainant produced on behalf of the petitioners. This document is not challenged before me, The injury report also further says, his heart beat was normal, B.P.was also normal to certain extent, thereby showing defacto complainant was capable of describing the incident as well as how and under what circumstances he had sustained injuries etc. Therefore, at present, it shall be presumed that only on the statement given by the defacto complainant , the doctor should have made the entries in the accident/injury report. The injury report says, that Madhavan sustained injuries in a road accident, while riding his two wheeler, hit by a car from behind. The injuries are described as follows :

1. The lacerated injuries in the parieto occipital region measuring 4 cm x 2 cm and 6 x 2 cm respectively.
2. One linear abrasion on the upper back
3. Multiple superficial scratches on the dorcum of the right hand and right knee.

The nature of injuries also suggest, that the defacto complainant might have sustained injuries only in the road accident or by fall. All the injuries are simple in nature and as per the wound certificate available. I do not find any reason at present, to doubt about the genuineness of the accident/injury report, issued by Apollo Hospital, which indicates that the defacto complainant, had sustained injuries only in the road accident, not as described by him in the complaint, which came to surface belatedly, at somebody’s instigation. It is not the case of the defacto complainant, that by dashing the car, while he was traveling in a two wheeler, an attempt was made to commit murder, at least to fit in with the previous allegation in the wound certificate. Curiously, in the complaint, he has given a totally different version, as if seeing four persons when he attempted to escape, after stopping the two wheeler, he was powerfully attacked on his head. Considering the wound certificate and the reasons stated therein for sustaining the injuries by the defacto complainant and the belated stand taken by the defacto complainant after three months, at present I am unable to believe the statement of the defacto complainant even prima facie, that he should have been the target of attempt to commit murder, especially by these persons who are working in a reputed company holding respectable and responsible posts. Even in the belated complaint except the name of Ranganathan and Muthukrishnan, who are the first Petitioner, in both the applications, others name do not find place. It is also not that at the time of the incident he had seen these persons instigating the actual assailants and therefore, they should be held responsible. Even to presume at present that there was an incident on 28.7.2004, in which the defacto complainant was threatened no material has been placed before me.

13. The submission of the learned public prosecutor that during the course of investigation one Krishnan has given a statement regarding the incident, fails to persuade me to accept at present about the actual involvement of these petitioners in the same way, the statement said to have been given to the Police under section 161 Cr.P.c. by Madhavan mentioning the name of Jayendrar, Ranganathan, Selvan & Seshadri in respect of the incident said to have taken place at Thirukkarungudi also failed to persuade me, to say at least especially that these petitioners should be the cause for the incident in which the defacto complainant sustained injuries, Under the above facts and circumstances of the case, considering the inordinate delay in preferring the complaint and the inconsistent stand taken by the defacto complainant, I am constrained to say, no prima facie case has been made out at present against the Petitioners, to say, that they should have committed the offence under Section 307 I.P.C.warranting refusal of Anticipatory Bail, thereby enabling the police to take them into custody, curtailing their liberty.

14. The submission of the petitioners that the belated complaint is motivated to be some what acceptable at present, considering the conduct of the defacto complainant. The first petitioner in Crl. O.P.No. 607/2005 is working as the Group Security Officer in Sundaram Clayton Group and the second Petitioner, is the Senior Manager (Civil) TVS Motor Company Limited, in which one Shri Venu Srinivasan is functioning as the Managing Director. The first Petitioner in Crl.O.P. No.430/2005 is the Senior Manager (P.R.) in M/s Sundaram Clayton Limited and the second Petitioner is the consultant of TVS Motor company Limited, Chennai. The defacto complainant is the administrative Secretary of Sree Sowmyanarayanan Emberumanar Charitable Trust, Thirukoshtiyur. Being a Vaishavaite, this man is also involved in the religious activities of the Vaishnavaite Temple and TVS Group of Companies are also renovating Vaishnavaite Temples and maintaining the same. As submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners by producing a letter written by this Thirukoshtiyur Madhavan, he had requested Venu Srinivasan to provide funds for some religious purpose on 12.4.2003. Responding to the latter, TVS Motor Company had written a letter to Shri Mahavan on 24.7.2003, informing sanctioning of Rs. 1 lakh which was received by Madhavan on 02.08.2003. Not satisfied with the said amount and realizing the paying capacity of TVS Group, once again on 25.5.2004, the said Madhavan had written a letter to Venu Srinivasan, Managing Director, Sundaram Clayton, requesting Financial assistance for certain religious activities quantifying the amount for more than Rs. 6 lakhs. There was no favourable reply from TVS Group. It is the case of the learned counsel for the petitioners, aggrieved by this viz. for non compliance of his demand ,a false case has been foisted to rope the people who are working in Sundaram and TVS Group, which cannot be ruled out at present. If this is not the motive, in the ordinary course, on the date of the incident itself, as indicated by me supra, the complainant should have preferred a complaint considering the previous failure would suggest positively, the complaint, presented at later stage, must be false, unless it is established by any other clinching evidence, which is not available at present for my perusal.

15. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, that these petitioners have no motive to attack the defacto complainant also appears to be acceptable in the absence of any evidence even prima facie. The defacto complainant is a vaishavaite and he may not be prejudiced in the shifting of the Lord Shiva Temple from the precinct of Perumal Temple at Thirukurungadi. If he had felt, that the removal of Lord Shiva Temple is against the rules of Agama Vedam, at the time of shifting itself, he should have agitated, which he has not done so. After the removal of Shiva Temple, litigation has also started and it is not the case of the prosecution before me, that this man took action against Vaishnavaite for the removal of Lord Shiva Temple. This being the position, it is unacceptable to me, that he should have questioned the Jeer and at that time, the Petitioners in both the cases, would have warned him with dire consequences, if he interferes with this matter. Except the bare allegation, that he had challenged the removal of Lord Shiva Temple, for the actual role said to have played by this Madhavan, no material has been placed.

16. Considering all these facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the inordinate delay in preferring the complaint, and considering the towering fact, that at the earliest opportunity, the complainant had reported that he had sustained injuries only in the road accident, I am of the undoubted view, that this case must be a foisted one or in other words, no prima facie case has been made out against the Petitioners for the refusal of Anticipatory Bail, since they have made out strong case that they would be taken into custody. Not only they have made out reasonable apprehension, but also they have made out a strong case for Anticipatory bail which is not actually negatived.

17. Under the above said circumstances, all the petitioners after entitled to be released on Anticipatory Bail in their event of arrest or on their surrendering before the Court, on condition that each of them executes, a bond for a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the judicial Magistrate No.1 Kancheepuram and upon further condition that the petitioner shall report to the investigation officer once in a week, ie. on every Monday at 10.00.am. Until further order in addition to complying with the conditions stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

The Petitioners shall surrender before the concerned Court within fifteen days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which, the anticipatory bail granted shall stand cancelled.

/sd/
28.01.2005

This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned.

TRUE COPY

Sub-Assistant Registrar, (Statistics/C.S)
High Court, Madras – 600 104

1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO-II 2. THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
KANCHEEPURAM CHENGALPATTU (FOR INFORMATION)

3. THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 4. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
HIGH COURT, MADRAS SPECIAL INVESTIGATION TEAM
D.F.D.BUILDING
KANCHEEPURAM

c.c.to : M/S R.RAJENDRAN, Advocate on payment of necessary charges.

>>


	\| How Can I Help ? \| Site Search \| Photo Gallery \| Contact \|