SANKAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 22/3/2023 for the offences punishable under Ss. 147, 447, 294(b), 353 of IPC r/w Sec. 3(1) TNPPDL Act, in Crime No.140 of 2023 on the file of the respondent police, seek bail.

(2.) The case of the prosecution as per the defacto complainant, who is the Deputy Commissioner/Executive Officer, (additional responsibility) Deputy Commissioner/Verification Officer at Arulmighu Arunasalesuvarar Thirukovil, Thiruvannamalai, is that a land in Survey No.1377, Ward No.1, Block No.22, with an extent of 23800 sq. ft situated at North Othavadai Street belongs to Arulmighu Arunasalesuvarar Thirukovil, Thiruvannamalai. A1 had illegally occupied the building opposite to Ammaniyamman Gopuram for many years. Further, as per the order passed by the District Court, Thiruvannamalai in Original Suit No.04/2022, on 13/3/2023 and also as per the order passed by the Joint Commissioner, HR and CE, Thiruvannamalai District, in M.P.No.70 of 2021/A2 dtd. 15/3/2023, the officers of the Revenue Department along with the officers of HR and CE were present at the said place on 18/3/2023 to remove the illegal encroachers and it was resumed on 19/3/2023 in the Thirukovil property, during which time the accused persons illegally trespassed into the said place and abused the officials in filthy language and also prevented them from discharging their official duty. Based on the complaint given by the defacto complainant, the present case came to be registered.

(3.) Mr.R.C.Paul Kanagaraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.7132 of 2023 is arrayed as A1 and the petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.7185 of 2023 are arrayed as A4 to A6. He further submitted that A1, who is an Advocate and Public Spirited Person, has been taking legal action for protection of heritage building in and around Thiruvannamalai. He further submitted that the incident has happened when of HR and CE officials attempted to illegally evict the lessees in the premises and attempted to demolish the heritage structures of the Mutt. He further submitted that the disputed property does not belong to the HR and CE and the above property belonged to one Bangalore T.A.Vaiyapuri Chettiar Trust. He further submitted that originally there was a Choultry known as Bangalore T.A.Vaiyapuri Chettiar and Ammani Ammal Choultry and it was founded by one Ammani Ammal, who constructed the northern Gopuram of the Temple which was known as Ammani Ammal Gopuram. He further submitted that at the time of construction, the building known as Madam was used for storing the construction materials for the Gopuram and later when the Gopuram was completed, the building was left by the said Ammani Ammal for providing shelter for pilgrims. In the year 1764, the said Ammani Ammal entrusted the management of the Choultry to some trustees. Later, there were disputes pending between the legal heirs of the trustees, which culminated into filing of a suit. Against the order passed in the suit, some of the legal heirs of the trustees filed first Appeal in A.S.No.347 of 1987, which came to be disposed by this Court on 21/8/2002. This Court, while disposing the first appeal, had passed the following order (in paragraph 13):