Back
2021 Supreme(Mad) 1361
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
B. PUGALENDHI, J.
Prabhu & Another – Appellants
Versus
State rep. by the Inspector of Police, Madukkur Police Station, Thanjavur – Respondent
Crl.OP(MD) Nos. 10401, 10437 to 10439, 10443 to 10446, 10451, 10453, 10455, 10456 & 10822 of 2021
Decided on : 11-08-2021
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :A. Arunprasad, Advocate.
For the Respondent:T. Senthilkumar, Government Advocate (Crl. Side).
Headnote:
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 21 - Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 166, 174 , 187 , 179 , 175 , 186 and 506(ii) - Obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions - Omission to produce document or electronic record to public servant by person, legally bound to produce it - 175 Omission to assist public servant when bound by law to give assistance - Refusing to answer public servant authorised to question - Public servant knowingly disobeys any direction of the law with intent to cause injury to any person - Non-attendance in obedience to an order from public servant - Omission to assist public servant when bound by law to give assistance - alleged to be taken place on 14.07.2021, that a mob attacked and ransacked the respondent-Madukkur Police Station and caused damage to the station and took away an accused, namely, Senthil, who was in the police custody. In this regard, a case was registered in Crime No.581 of 2021 for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 452, 294(b), 186, 224, 225, 285, 353, 506(ii), 149, 109 IPC and Section 3(1) of the Public Property (Prevention of Damage & Loss) Act, 1992, as against 30 accused and unknown others. Later names of 19 accused were included in CD file, totalling 49 accused in Crime – Held, police station and took away the first accused-Senthil, who was in custody - Specific overt-act was not made as against any of accused persons. It is not clear as to who raised slogans, who threatened the police, who caused damage to properties, who took first accused-Senthil from custody of police - Though it was alleged that the properties in the police station to tune of was damaged - Materials used for causing such damage were not mentioned and not recovered - From the CD-file, this Court found a photograph showing a single window glass break and nothing more other than that. From the photographs and videographs produced, it appears that some of the accused have raised slogans – petition is dismissed - Crl.OP(MD)No.10445 of 2021 is partly allowed
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking a direction to enlarge the petitioners on bail in Crime No.581 of 2021 on the file of the respondent police.)
1. An incident was alleged to be taken place on 14.07.2021, that a mob attacked and ransacked the respondent-Madukkur Police Station and caused damage to the station and took away an accused, namely, Senthil, who was in the police custody. In this regard, a case was registered in Crime No.581 of 2021 for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 452, 294(b), 186, 224, 225, 285, 353, 506(ii), 149, 109 IPC and Section 3(1) of the Public Property (Prevention of Damage & Loss) Act, 1992, as against 30 accused and unknown others. Later names of 19 accused were included in the CD file, totalling 49 accused in Crime No.581 of 2021.
2. The petitioners before this Court are either arrested by the respondent Police or are apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent Police in connection with Crime No. 581 of 2021. Hence, they are before this Court seeking appropriate relief.
3. Rajavarman @ Periyadurai [A4], Jawahar [A7], Muruganantham [A10], Velaventhan [A14], Nabil @ Naddarsha [A15], Prabu [A16], Arivalagan [A17] Kanmani [A18], Muruganantham [A19], Rajkumar [A20], Pannerselvam [A21], Rajangam [A22], Hariharan [A23], Ranjith [A25], Sathish @ Sathish kumar [A26], Kamaraj [A29], Vigneshwaran [A30], Ilango [A31], Kamaraj [A32], Yogesh [A33], Kannadasan [A34], Madhankumar [A35], Sathriyan [A36], Vinoth [A37] were already arrested by the respondent Police and they are seeking bail.
4. Vairavamoorthy [A2], Manikandan [A3], Rajkumar [A5], Veerakumar [A6], Veerasingam [A9], Suresh [A11], Raja @ Pettaraja @ Mannarmannan [A13], Kannan @ Ramakrishnan [A24], Rajendran [A28], R.J.Ananth @ Jeevanantham [A38] are apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police and they are seeking anticipatory bail.
5. Since all the petitions pertain to the case in Crime No.581 of 2021, all of them are heard together and are disposed of by way of this common order.
6. The prosecution case is that one Senthil, Secretary of a political party, is an accused in a case in Crime No. 1485 of 2020 on the file of the Madukkur Police Station. In connection with the said case, the accused Senthil was apprehended on 14.07.2021 and was in the station. On the said date, around 03.15 pm, a mob led by the petitioners and others, formed an unlawful assembly, trespassed into the police station and challenged the police stating that why they kept the accused Senthil in the police station. It is their further case that the mob abused the police in filthy language and demanded the release of the said Senthil. On the instigation of the said Senthil, who is also arrayed as first accused in the present case, the petitioners and others damaged the properties and vehicles in the police station to the tune of Rs.5000/- and stage- managed to commit suicide by setting fire. They have also took the said Senthil from the custody of the police. Hence, the present complaint.
7. Learned Counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, contended that the petitioners are innocents and the case has been foisted against them. Some of the petitioners took a plea that an agitation was conducted in a peaceful manner as against the unlawful arrest of Senthil, due to which, the present case was foisted against them. Some of the petitioners took a plea that they are no way connected with the occurrence and since they happen to be the relative of the accused–Senthil or the audience to the occurrence, they have been implicated as accused in this case.
8. The police station is a public place, where the citizens may come for lodging a complaint and therefore, a mere presence of a person in the police station at the time of occurrence itself would not make out a case as against that individual. As per the directions of this Court as well as the latest decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Paramvir Singh Saini v. B
