Appu v. The State Rep.By Its
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Second day of November Two Thousand Twenty One PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice M.DHANDAPANI CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.18950 of 2021 APPU [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ] Vs THE STATE REP.BY ITS [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, K-10, KOYAMBEDU POLICE STATION, CHENNAI.
CRIME NO.1094 OF 2021 For Petitioner : M/S.A.RAJESH KANNA Advocate For Respondent : MR.A.GOPINATH, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence under Sections 147, 148, 353, 307, 506(ii) of IPC in Crime No.1094 of 2021 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2.The case of the prosecution is that on the date of occurrence, the Executive Officer of Arulmigu Marga Sagaya Easwarar Thirukovil, along with other H.R. & C.E higher officials, went to petitioner's commercial premises to lock and seal, as the premises belong to the said temple. During that time, the petitioner wantonly restrained the defacto complainant and other officials from discharging their official duty. Further, he threatened them by pouring kerosene on himself and set fire, in order to prevent the authorities from discharging their duty. Therefore, the law enforcing agency registered a case against the petitioner.
3. No one appeared on behalf of the petitioner.
4. On an earlier occasion, particularly by order dated 26.10.2021, this Court has directed the Commissioner, H.R & C.E to explain whether the petitioner is entitled to file revision petition. In response their to, the Commissioner, H.R & C.E Department has filed an affidavit wherein, para 5, it has been stated that since there is no appeal remedy as provided against Section 78 of the Act, the aggrieved person has to resort to Section 21 of the Act by way of revision to the Commissioner and the Commissioner by exercising his discretion under sub-section (7) of Section 21 of the Act may entertain the revision. The Commissioner stated that the petitioner has not filed any revision petition before the said authorities.
5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that the petitioner along with other accused, encroached the temple land up to 22,500 Sq.ft., and when the Executive officer of the temple, along with other officers, approached the petitioner to vacate the premises, the petitioner wantonly restrained the defacto complainant and other officials from discharging their official duty and poured kerosene on himself, in order to avoid the lock and seal procedures of the authorities. Further, eviction notice was also issued to the petitioner to vacate the premises. He further submitted that the petitioner had not filed any revision petition and admittedly refused to vacate the premises belonging to the Temple. Hence, he strongly opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
6. It appears that the petitioner is an encroacher and the concerned Commissioner had taken steps to evict the petitioner from the commercial premises which belongs to the temple and the petitioner has refused to vacate the same.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that there is an specific overtact attributed against this petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
8. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. -sd/- 02/11/2021 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 COMMISSIONER, H.R & C.E.DEPARTMENT, CHENNAI-34 2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.
3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, K-10, KOYAMBEDU POLICE STATION, CHENNAI.
+1 CC to M/S.A.RAJESH KANNA Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.NO.12379 CRL OP.18950/2021 Date :02/11/2021 JPA 18/11/2021