IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 12.11.2014

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

Crl.O.P.No.8944 of 2014

K.Gandhi ... Petitioner

-vs-

1. J.Ganesan
2. J.Elumalai
3. S.Neela Narayanan
4. State Rep. by
The Sub-Inspector of Police
Mailam Police Station,
Tindivanam Sub Division
Villupuram District.
(Crime No.140 of 2014) .. Respondents

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 439

Cr.P.C, seeking to cancel the order dated 28.03.2014 granting
anticipatory bail by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Villupuram
in Crl.M.P.No.2443 of 2014 to the respondents 1 to 3.

For Petitioner :
Mr.C.S.Dhanasekaran
For Respondent 4 :
Mr.C.Ayyapparaj
Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side)
For Respondent 1 to 3 : Mr.C.Prakasam
Orders Reserved on : 07.11.2014
Orders Pronounced on: 12.11.2014

O R D E R

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel

for the respondents 1 to 3 and the learned Government Advocate
(Crl.Side) for the State / R4.

2. This is a petition for cancellation of the anticipatory bail

that has been granted by the learned Principal Sessions Judge,
Villupuram to the respondents 1 to 3 herein. The defacto complainant
is the petitioner before this Court.

3. It is the case of the prosecution that one Neela Narayanan

has lands adjacent to the lands belonging to Pandian, who is the

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
 elder brother of the defacto complainant. It is stated in the
complaint that Neela Narayanan is quarrying in his land and his
vehicles passed through the lands of Pandian and damaged the crops.
This was objected to by Pandian and the defacto complainant.

4. On 25.03.2014 around 6.30 in the evening, when crusher

lorries belonging to the said Neela Narayanan passed through the
lands of Pandian, his brothers questioned Neela Narayanan. Incensed
by that, it is stated in the complaint that Ganesan, Elumalai and
Neela Narayanan indiscriminately attacked Pandian with iron rods and
caused serious injuries to him. Pandian was carried by the defacto
complainant in an ambulance to the nearby Government Hospital in
Tindivanam, where he was given first aid and thereafter, he was
shifted to Jipmer Hospital, Pondicherry. On the very same day, the
injured was taken from Jipmer Hospital, Pondicherry to MIOT Hospital,
Chennai, because the defacto complainant found serious fracture in
the right fore arm. After admitting Pandian in the MIOT Hospital, the
defacto complainant came to the Police Station and lodged a written
complaint, based on which a case in Crime No.140 of 2014 under
Sections 294(b), 324, 448, 506(ii) and 307 IPC was registered by
Police on 26.03.2014 at around 3.00 p.m. against Ganesan (A1),
Elumalai (A2) and Neela Narayanan (A3). On the next day, i.e.,
27.03.2014, these three accused approached the Sessions Court for
anticipatory bail, which came up for hearing on 28.03.2014 and the
said Court was pleased to pass the following order:
“Heard both sides. The petitioners have been charged
for the alleged offences u/s.294(b), 448, 324, 506(ii) and
307 IPC. The dispute is between two brothers, namely, the
petitioner and the complainant with regard to the business
dealing in blue metal and the injured person has been
discharged from the hospital is the submission made by the
learned public prosecutor. Hence, this court is inclined to
grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners on the following
conditions:”

5. Mr.C.Prakasam, learned counsel appearing for the contesting

respondents submitted that there is no infirmity with the order of
the Sessions Court and that pursuant to the order, they have been
complying with the conditions imposed thereon. He also submitted that
when the injured was discharged from the Jipmer Hospital,
Pondicherry, the anticipatory bail petition was considered by the
Sessions Court and therefore, there is no illegality in the said
order.

6. On the contrary, a mere reading of the complaint, which forms

basis for registration of the FIR, shows that after brutal attack,
the injured was carried by the defacto complainant to the Government
Hospital, Tindivanam and from there, he was taken to Jipmer Hospital,
Pondicherry and again shifted from there to MIOT Hospital in Chennai
for advanced orthopedic surgery. The complaint has been given only

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
 after admitting the injured in the MIOT Hospital. Therefore, at the
time when the anticipatory bail was under consideration, injured was
not discharged and he was an inpatient in the MIOT Hospital. That
apart, learned Sessions Judge has stated that the dispute is between
brothers, which is not true. Brothers are the aggrieved parties and
the assailant Neela Narayanan is the adjacent land owner.

7. Looking at from any angle, I find that the order of the

Sessions Court is not sustainable. The injured was treated as an
inpatient in the MIOT Hospital and yet to undergo a complicated
surgery, which resulted in internal fixation of plate. The assault
seems to be a pre-planned one and the motive appears to be that the
accused, who are mine operators, have been trespassing into the lands
of the victim with impunity on account of the muscle and money power.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs.
Ashis Chatterjee and another, reported in (2010) 14 SCC 496, wherein
parametres for granting bail have been succinctly categorized.

9. Taking into consideration the gravity of allegations against

the respondents 1 to 3 in the facts and circumstances of the present
case, the order of granting anticipatory bail to them does not
satisfy the parametres, laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
aforesaid judgment.

10. In the result, this petition is allowed. The order dated

28.03.2014, passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge,
Villupuram is set aside and the anticipatory bail granted to the
respondents / accused 1 to 3 herein, is cancelled. Consequently, the
bail bonds and the sureties furnished by the accused are cancelled
and it is directed that they will be taken into custody forthwith.
Needless to add that observations touching the merits of the case
against the accused are purely for the purpose of deciding the
question of grant of bail and if in future any such application is
filed by the accused, it shall be considered on its own merits
untrammelled by any of these observations.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar (J)
Dated: 17/11/2014

//True Copy//

Sub Assistant Regisrar

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
 ar

To

1. Principal Sessions Judge,

Villupuram

2. The Sub-Inspector of Police

Mailam Police Station,
Tindivanam Sub Division
Villupuram District.

3. The Public Prosecutor,

High Court, Madras

1 CC to Mr.C.S.Dhanasekaran, Advocate, SR No.53761

1 CC to the Government Pleader, SR No.22844
Pre-Delivery Order in
Crl.O.P.No.8944 of 2014
sk(CO)
JJM (18/11/2014)

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/