N K K P RAJA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who has been arrayed as A-14 out of 30 accused in this case, apprehends arrest on the basis of the issue of Non-Bailable Warrant issued against him after filing charge sheet in this case in P.R.C.No.28 of 2009 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Perundurai, for the alleged offence under Sections 147, 148, 448, 452, 365, 354, 386, 395, 427, 506 (ii) and 120(b) IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992.2.1. Mr.N.Jothi, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been implicated on the allegation of conspiracy and his name was not mentioned in the First Information Report (F.I.R.) which was sent through post and registered in Crime No.650 of 2008. It is contended that there are only general allegations made against the petitioner to the effect that the petitioner received phone calls from some of the assailants. It is further submitted that the further allegation is to the effect that three named persons in the F.I.R. alleged to have asked the complainant to come for a settlement talks before the petitioner, but the complainant refused to attend the said settlements and on the date of occurrence three accused persons named in the F.I.R. along with their henchmen came to the land of the complainant, started levelling the land forcibly and during the course of the said transaction, the brother of the complainant P.C.Palanisamy, brother's wife Malarvishi and their son Sivabalan were kidnapped and thereafter, they were forced to sign the registered partition deed dated 23.07.2008.2.

(2.) THE learned counsel would further submit that in the meantime one Elangovan, son-in-law of P.C.Palanisamy, filed H.C.P.No.1092 of 2008 for production of P.C.Palanisamy, his wife Malarvishi and their son Sivabalan and the said Sivabalan was produced before this Court on 28.07.2008 and his parents were produced before this Court on 29.07.2008 and on the basis of the statement of the alleged detenue Sivabalan, the offences were altered to Sections 147, 148, 452, 447, 427, 365, 386, 379 and 506 (ii) IPC on 28.07.2008. 2.

(3.) THE learned counsel would submit that as on date, all the other accused have already been released on bail by this Court and the investigation is over after examining the witnesses under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and the final report was filed before the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Perundurai, and the same was taken on file in P.R.C.No.28 of 2009. THE learned counsel would further contend that the learned Magistrate instead of issuing summons for the appearance of the petitioner, straight-away issued non-bailable warrant against the petitioner and as such, the petitioner is having apprehension of arrest at the hands of the respondent police. It is submitted that the petitioner will not evade justice or tamper with the witnesses. 3. Mr.A.Saravanan, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that the petitioner has been arrayed as A-14 out of 30 accused and he has been implicated on the allegation of conspiracy. It is submitted that the investigation is over and the charge sheet has been filed in this case and on filing the charge sheet, the learned Magistrate issued non-bailable warrant against the petitioner. It is further submitted that all the other co-accused have already been enlarged on bail.4.1. Mr.K.M.Vijayan, learned senior counsel appearing for the intervener submitted that the intervener is the victim in the instant case and as such she has filed the intervening petition. It is contended by the learned senior counsel that there are enough evidence available on record to implicate the petitioner and the occurrence took place due to his instigation and conspiracy. THE learned senior counsel would contend that statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. were recorded from 22 witnesses which would reveal that the petitioner would tamper with the witnesses misusing his public office and influence as he was the former Minister of the state Government and sitting M.L.A. THE learned senior counsel also contended that the petitioner has been implicated in four cases. THE learned senior counsel took this Court through the observations made in respect of the petitioner in the order passed by this Court in Crl.O.P.Nos.26622, 26951, 26953, 27688, 27720 and 27988 of 2008 dated 02.012.2008 while granting the relief of bail to the other co-accused. THE learned senior counsel also placed reliance on the order of this Court in H.C.P.No.1092 of 2008 dated 29.07.2008, wherein the petitioner has been impleaded as third respondent and contended that the detenus appeared and gave statements implicating the petitioner herein. THE learned senior counsel lastly contended that the anticipatory bail applications of the co-accused have already been dismissed by this Court for cogent reasons and the Honourable Apex Court in S.L.P. (Crl.) No.7116 of 2008 etc. by order dated 03.08.2009 observed that the petitioners therein/co-accused should appear before the Court concerned and apply for regular bail and in the event of filing such application, the same shall be considered on its own merits and as such it is open to the petitioner to surrender and file an application for recalling the non bailable warrant before the learned Magistrate.4. 2. THE learned senior counsel would place reliance on the decisions of the Honourable Apex Court in State V. Jaspal Singh Gill reported in 1984(3) SCC 555 and State V. Anil Sharma reported in 1997 (7) SCC 187. 5. Mr.B.Kumar, learned senior counsel submitted that he is appearing for the de-facto complainant. It is contended by the learned senior counsel that the occurrence in this case took place on 22.07.2008, in which, a group of more than 200 persons ransacked the property, destroyed 200 coconut trees and the house and also kidnapped one P.C.Palanisamy, his wife Malarvishi and their son Sivabalan. It is contended that a complaint was given on the same day, but the said complaint was registered only on 24.07.2008. It is submitted that thereafter a second occurrence took place on 24.07.2008, in which, there was a further destruction of property and the de-facto complainant's house was also ransacked and in respect of the said occurrence, F.I.R. was registered in Crime No.671 of 2008 on 28.07.2009. THE learned senior counsel would further submit that yet another case was registered in Crime No.800 of 2008, in which, the person who was kidnapped, died after 50 days due to the ill-treatment meted out by him at the hands of the petitioner's group. THErefore, it is contended that the anticipatory bail for the petitioner in respect of this case alone ought not to be considered in isolation and the other cases to be considered as the subsequent happenings pursuant to the earlier case is also relevant. It is contended that it cannot be stated that the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner is the lesser than the offence committed by the other accused, in respect of whom the anticipatory bail applications were dismissed. It is submitted that due to the lethargic attitude of the earlier investigating agency, the case was transferred to the C.B.C.I.D. as per the order of this Court and such order was upheld by the Honourable Supreme Court. THE learned senior counsel would lastly submit that as the petitioner was absconding, non-bailable warrant was rightly issued against the petitioner by the learned Magistrate.