Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 40334
MADRAS HIGH COURT
BALACHANDRAN@SUREKA BALACHANDAR – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE THORUGH THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE – Respondent
CRL OP(MD) 23341 2022
The court may grant anticipatory bail if it finds that the arrest of the accused is not necessary and that the accused is not likely to abscond or interfere with the investigation.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL - ANTICIPATORY BAIL - ELECTION - UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY - ASSAULT - DAMAGE TO PUBLIC PROPERTY - Petitioners, members of AIADMK, allegedly formed an unlawful assembly, used filthy language, blocked traffic, and threatened police during a District Council Vice President election - Petitioners seek anticipatory bail, arguing that the case is politically motivated and there was no assault or damage to property - Court grants anticipatory bail, finding that arrest is not necessary and petitioners have permanent residence in Tamil Nadu - Petitioners ordered to execute bonds and report to police daily for two weeks.
Fact of the Case:
During the District Council Vice President election, members of the AIADMK and DMK political parties allegedly fought with each other, making allegations against each other. The petitioners, who belong to the AIADMK party, were accused of forming an unlawful assembly, using filthy language, blocking traffic, and threatening police. An FIR was registered against the petitioners under various sections, including Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the arrest of the petitioners was not necessary as there was no possibility of them absconding from justice or interfering with the investigation process. The court also noted that the petitioners had permanent residence in Tamil Nadu and that there was no indication in the FIR as to the value of the properties allegedly damaged.
Issues: Whether the petitioners should be granted anticipatory bail in a case involving allegations of unlawful assembly, assault, and damage to public property during an election.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the following principles in reaching its decision:- The arrest of the petitioners was not necessary as there was no possibility of them absconding from justice or interfering with the investigation process.- The petitioners had permanent residence in Tamil Nadu.- There was no indication in the FIR as to the value of the properties allegedly damaged.
Final Decision: The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners on the condition that they execute bonds and report to the police daily for two weeks.
Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos.23341 to 23345 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05.01.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN
Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos.23341 to 23345 of 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.23341 of 2022:
1.Balachandran @ Sureka Balachandar
2.Sakthivel @ Kappithul Sakthivel
3.Krishnan
4.Rajendran
5.VPN Jegathes
6.Subramanian @ Subramani
7.Nirmalkumar
8.Logesh
9.Gunganraj @ Sudhan
... Petitioners
Vs.
The State through the Inspector of Police,
Thanthonimalai Police Station,
Karur.
Crime No.483 of 2022.
... Respondent
PRAYER
: This Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., to
enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of their arrest pending investigation in
Crime.No.483 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police.
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos.23341 to 23345 of 2022
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Ayyapparaj
for Mr.J.Senthil Kumaraiah
For Respondent : Mr.S.Santhosh
Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
COMMON ORDER
The Criminal Original Petitions are filed for enlarging the petitioner on bail
in the event of their arrest pending investigation in Crime.No.483 of 2022 on the
file of the respondent police.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners are
the accused in Crime No.483 of 2022 for the offences under Sections 143,
294(b), 341, 353, 506 (ii) of IPC and Section 3 of Tamil Nadu Public Property
(Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on 19.12.2022, when the District
Council Vice President Election was conducted at District Collector Office,
Karur, the defacto complainant and his assistant S.Nirmal Ganesh were on duty
2/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos.23341 to 23345 of 2022
to oversee the election. At about 2.30 pm, AIADMK's District Secretary and
former Tamil Nadu Minister Mr.Vijayabaskar and about 200 persons, in which
58 of them are named and others not named, formed an unlawful assembly and
made slogans against the DMK party and tried to forcefully enter into the polling
area. When the Police officials manning the bandobust duty told them to allow
only persons, who are authorised to enter, they used filthy language against the
DMK party and others. They have blocked the Karur-Dindugal main road and
prevented the free flow of the traffic. When the police tried to arrest them, they
started hitting against the barricade and threatened them that they would take
action against them, if they come to power and made a death threat.
4. On the basis of these aforesaid allegations, the First Information Report
was registered.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that one
Thiruvika, member of AIADMK party filed W.P.(MD).No.26246 of 2022,
seeking direction to the respondent police to forthwith issue notification for the
3/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos.23341 to 23345 of 2022
conduct of the Karur District Panchayat Vice Chairman Election and conduct the
election under supervision of retired Hon'ble High court Judge or by any other
retired District Court Judge with adequate police protection and further direction
to the respondents to videograph the entire election process so as to ensure free
and fair election without any irregularities.
6. However, instead of providing police protection, at the instigation of
ruling party, they restrained the members of AIADMK political party to cast their
vote in the election. Therefore, there were some fight between the members of
both the political parties. Thereafter, this case is foisted against the AIADMK
party. He further submitted that there was no assault made and no damages
whatsoever, alleged to have been caused to any public or private property. Thus,
he prayed for Anticipatory Bail to the petitioners.
7. In response, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) opposed
these petitions, strongly on the grou
