D.Prakash v. The State Or Tamil Nadu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 05.01.2021

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN Crl.O.P.No.17599 of 2020 & Crl.MP.No.8367 of 2020 1.D.Prakash 2.Vijaya

...Petitioners

Vs.

The State of Tamil Nadu Rep by its Inspector of Police, Karimangalam Police Station, Dharmapuri District.

(Crime No.1640 of 2020)

...Respondent

SMT.SARASWATHI [ PETITIONER / INTERVENER/ DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT ] [ORDERED AS PER ORDER OF THIS COURT DATED 05/01/2021 IN CRL.MP.NO.8367/2020 IN CRL.OP.NO.17599/2020] Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code, praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of arrest in Crime No. 1640 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioners : Mr.A.Ilayaperumal For Intervenor : Mr.R.Selvakumar For Respondent : Mr.S.Karthikeyan Additional Public Prosecutor ****

O R D E R

(The case has been heard through video conference) The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences under Section 447 of IPC r/w Section 3 of Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 in Crime No.1640 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution as per the de-facto complainant is that the petitioners are A1 and A2. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners are said to have demolished house belonging to the de facto complainant worth about Rs.2,00,000/-. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocents and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He would submit that there is a civil dispute between the parties and earlier, the de facto complainant has filed a suit against the petitioners in OS.No.204 of 2011 before the District Munsif Court seeking permanent injunction and mandatory injunction and the same was dismissed by judgment dated 03.12.2019 and thereafter, the de facto complainant himself demolished his house and given a false complaint against the petitioners as if they have demolished the house. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. Mr.S.Karthikeyan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that due to civil dispute, the petitioners had demolished the house belonging to the de facto complainant. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. The learned counsel for the intervenor/de facto complainant would submit that even as per the judgment of the Civil Court in O.S.No.204 of 2011, the petitioners are having 13 cents whereas, they are constructing new house claiming the right over the property of 26 cents.

6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and also the submissions made by the learned counsels and that there is a civil dispute pending between the parties, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to the following conditions:

a) Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail, in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Palacode, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a separate bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that: [b] 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. [c] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police as and required for the interrogation.

[d] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

[e] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

[f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners 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]. [g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.

7. With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition is ordered.

-sd/- 05/01/2021 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.

TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, PALACODE.

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE DHARMAPURI [FOR INFORMATION] 3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KARIMANGALAM POLICE STATION, DHARMAPURI DISTRICT.

+1 CC to M/S.R.SELVAKUMAR Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.No.120 CRL OP.17599/2020 & CRL.MP.8367/2020 Date :05/01/2021 cs 19/01/2021