VELMURUGAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition for grant Anticipatory Bail. The gist of the petition is as follows:-The petitioners apprehend arrest by the respondent Police for an alleged offence under Section 147,148, 448, 120 (B) and 302 IPC. The occurrence is said to have taken place on 22. 8. 2004 at about 21. 45 hrs. The first petitioner is a sitting MLA and other two petitioners are his brothers. According to the prosecution case the petitioners and five others are said to have gone to the house of the deceased the first petitioner asked the complainant Saraswathi about her husband, deceased Venkatesan and at that time Venkatesan jumped from the upstairs and ran away to one Shanthi's house for shelter, the petitioners chased him and attacked him all over his body with deadly weapons and the deceased died on the spot. The petitioners submit that they are in no way connected with the alleged offence and the case has been politically foisted against the petitioners. ON 22. 8. 2004 at about 7. 30 pm. , to 10. 00 pm. , the first petitioner participated in the District Level Volley Ball Tournament held at Kolakkudi Vilalge and also he distributed the prize to the Teams and the respondent Police also are well aware of these official programme which was already intimated to them. Hence after thorough enquiry the respondent knows that these petitioners were not involved in this case. But the present Superintendent of Police changed the earlier Investigating Officer and appointed one Sundaravadivelu, Inspector of Police as a Special Investigation Officer in this case and they trespassed into the petitioners' house and damaged the household articles and took away Rs. 11,500/= cash in the name of investigation. About this incident, a complaint was filed by the petitioners' father before the Human Rights Commission on 6. 10. 2004 and the State Human Rights Commission issued a notice to them. Further, the private Human Rights Organization called "people Watch" went to the house of the petitioners and enquired the petitioners' father and other villagers about the atrocity committed by the Police. At that time, the Superintendent of Police and the respondent Police arrested the members of the said People Watch Organization. According to the petitioners it is purely a politically foisted case and the petitioners will abide by any conditions imposed by this court and also they will produce sufficient sureties for their release.

(2.) THE Investigating Officer Mr. Sundaravadivel has filed a counter affidavit, the gist of which is as follows:-One Venkatesan who was then a PMK District Panchayat Councilor was alleged to have cross voted to the AIADMK candidate in the District Panchayat Chairman by-election in which the AIADMK candidate was elected as the Chairman. Keeping this in mind the petitioners along with other accused demanded Rs. 3 lakhs from the said Venkatesan to pardon him for the mistake committed by him. This demand was turned down by Venkatesan and his family members. Hence the petitioners and other accused not able to digest the attitude of the said Venkatesan went to the house of the said Venkatesan on 22. 8. 2004 at about 21. 45 hrs and formed into an unlawful assembly with deadly weapons viz. , Veechu Aruval, iron pipes and Wooden logs went came to the house of Venkatesan and questioned his wife as to the whereabouts of Venkatesan and at the time when the wife was answering them Venkatesan was pushed by the petitioners and other accused. Venkatesan was chased till he ran inside the house of one Shanthi of the adjoining street for shelter and murdered.

(3.) ONE Srinivasan, S/o. Murugesan who was the Organiser of the function has stated that the District Level Volley Ball Tournament held at Karaikudi Village on 22. 8. 2004 was a day light match which ended as early as at 6. 30 p. m. , on that day and further the prize distribution of the said match was also completed by 7. 00 p. m. , and thus the first petitioner had his dinner by 7. 30 pm. , and later the first petitioner left to his residence situated at Panruti by 8. 00 p. m. , The second and third petitioners did not participate in the said function. The distance between the place where the tournament was held and place of occurrence is about 25 kilometers. The petitioner has purposely created an alibi to escape from the clutches of law.