Mohan v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 01/08/2019 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice P.RAJAMANICKAM
1. Mohan
2. M.Sudheer
3. K.H. Prabhu Singh ... Petitioners/Accused Rank not known Vs The State Rep.by, The Inspector of Police, Marthandam Police Station, Kanaykumari District.
Crime No. 277 of 2019. ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.R.Singaravelan, Senior Counsel for Mr.D.Selvanayagam,Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr.V.Neelakandan, Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No. 277 of 2019 on the file of the Respondent Police.
ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 342, 380, 435, 451 of IPC and Section 3 (1) of the Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992, in Crime No.277 of 2019, seek anticipatory bail.
2. Heard both sides.
3.The case of the prosecution is that on 21.07.2019 during midnight at about 02.50 a.m, the petitioners herein tied hands, eyes and mouth of the watchman of the Marthandam Bee keepers Co-operative Society and broke open the door of the said Society and entered into the said Society and damaged the ballot boxes and also CCTV camera and disc and set fire to the ballot boxes and caused total damage of Rs.15,500/- and hence they are liable to be punished under Sections 1/4
342, 380, 435, 451 of IPC and Section 3(1) of the Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992.
4.The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners 1 & 2 are the sons of one C.Manas and that the third petitioner is son of one C.Kumaradhas and they are in no way connected with the above case. He further submitted that the said C.Manas and C.Kumaradhas have not contested the election of the Co-operative Society. Their nomination papers were rejected and hence they have filed a writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.10617 of 2018 before this Court and this Court has passed an interim order on 03.05.2018 that the matter should be posted before the next vacation Court and in the mean time, the respondent should not publish the result of the election and the said result is still kept in abeyance.
He further submitted that since there is an order of stay for publishing the election result, there is no necessity for the petitioners to damage the ballot boxes. He further submitted that the alleged act may have been committed by any of the contesting candidates. He further submitted that in the FIR, the name of the petitioners have not been mentioned and only based on the confession said to have been given by one Christhuraj (A1) before the police, the petitioners herein arrayed as accused. He further submitted that the confession which was said to have been given before the police is not admissible as per Section 25 of the Evidence Act. He further submitted that even in the said confession the said accused has not stated that the petitioners herein broke open the door of the said Society and caused damage to the ballot papers.
On the contrary he has simply stated that he gave idea how to destroy the said ballot papers. Further, except the said confession statement, no other material is available to implicate these petitioners in the above crime. He further submitted that the co-accused were already granted anticipatory bail by this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.10583 of 2019, dated 26.07.2019 and therefore, he prayed to anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
5. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent has submitted that since the nomination of the petitioners' fathers have been rejected, they are having grievance about the conducting of the election and hence they have conspired to destroy the said ballot papers. In pursuance of the said conspiracy, on 21.07.2019, during the mid-night at about 02.50 a.m, all the petitioners went to the said Society and tide the hands, mouth and eyes of the watchman and broke open the door and entered into the Society and broke open the ballot boxes and set fire to the ballot papers and destroyed the said ballot papers and caused damage to the CCTV camera and disc. He further submitted that after registering the FIR, one Chirsthuraj was arrested and he gave a confession, in which, he has categorically stated that all the accused persons have conspired and also committed the aforesaid offence. He further submitted that since the investigation is at 2/4
initial stage, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners are absolutely necessary, and hence, he prayed to dismiss this petition. However, he conceded that co-accused were already granted anticipatory bail by this Court.
6.In the FIR itself it is stated that already the nomination papers submitted by the petitioners' fathers have been rejected and aggrieved by the same, they have filed W.P(MD)No.10617 of 2018 and obtained an interim order and hence counting of the votes stopped. Further it is stated that the four unknown persons on 21.07.2019 during mid-night at about 02.15 a.m came there and tied the hands of the watchman and after breaking the door, they entered into the said Society and broke open the ballot boxes and set fire to the ballot papers. In the FIR, the name of the petitioners have not been mentioned.
7.Further, admittedly, the nomination of the petitioners' fathers have been rejected and further they obtained interim stay from this Court by filing writ petition on 03.05.2018 itself, whereas, the alleged occurrence took place after more than one year from the date of obtaining interim order. Further, the only the material, which is relied on by the prosecution is that during investigation, one Chiristhuraj was arrested and he gave confession before the police and based on the said confession statement the petitioners herein have been implicated. In the said confession, he has stated that he only gave idea to the petitioners as to how to destroy the ballot papers and beyond that he has not stated anything that in pursuance of the said idea, whether the petitioners herein have destroyed the papers or not.
Further the alleged confession statement given before the police is hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. So, no reliance can be placed upon the said confession statement. Apart from the aforesaid confession statement of coaccused said to have been given before police, no other materials has been produced by the prosecution to implicate the petitioners in the above case.
8.Taking into consideration all the aforesaid facts, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions.
9. 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 Magistrate Court, Kuzhithurai-I, Kanyakumari District, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) each with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent Police or to the Police Officer, who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that:
3/4
(i) If the petitioners fail to surrender before the concerned Magistrate within a period of 15 days, this order shall stand automatically cancelled.
(ii) the petitioners shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m for a period of three weeks and thereafter, as and when required before the respondent police for interrogation.
(iii) the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial. (iv) the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.
(v) 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]. (vi) If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229-A IPC.
sd/- 01/08/2019 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023 TO 1.THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KUZHITHURAI-I, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT 2.DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT AT NAGERCOIL.
3.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE MARTHANDAM POLICE STATIN, KANAYKUMARI DISTRICT. 4.THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
+1. CC to M/S.D.SELVANAYAGAM Advocate SR.No.12787
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.10865 of 2019 Date :01/08/2019 VS PK/PN/SAR-1/07.08.2019 : 4P/6C 4/4