Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 18324
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Hon`ble Mrs Justice T.V. THAMILSELVI
LAKSHMANAN – Appellant
Versus
INSPECTOR OF POLICE – Respondent
The Court affirmed that bail can be granted based on the duration of custody and circumstances surrounding the offense, differentiating between civil disputes and criminal acts.
Headnote:
Bail - Criminal Procedure - IPC Sections 294(b), 324, 307, 506(ii) - The Court upheld the Trial Judge's bail decision for the accused, emphasizing the nature of the dispute and the injuries sustained, confirming that bail was appropriately granted after a period of judicial custody and the victims' discharge from the hospital.
Fact of the Case:
The 2nd and 3rd respondents were arrested for alleged assault related to a property dispute. They sought bail after being in judicial custody, which the Trial Court granted, leading the petitioner to challenge this order.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the Trial Judge's bail order was justified, given the duration of custody and the discharge of the victims. The Court noted no errors in the Trial Judge's decision.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Trial Judge erred in granting bail considering the severity of the alleged offenses and the nature of the underlying dispute.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court determined that the conditions leading to bail were met, and the observations made during bail consideration did not undermine the trial's integrity, thus maintaining the bail order.
Final Decision: The Criminal Original Petition was dismissed, affirming the bail granted to the respondents.
ORDER
The 2nd and 3rd respondents were arrested for the offence under Sections
294(b), 324, 506(ii) of IPC and into Section 294(b), 324, 307, 506(ii) of , who were remanded to judicial custody on 22.12.2023 in Crime No.892 of 2023. Subsequently, they filed a petition, in Crl.M.P.No.81 of 2024 before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu seeking bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant namely Lakshmanan, petitioner herein is a security guard for the property situated at Kovilambakkam Village, Tambaram Taluk for which one Mr. Shaik Abdul Hameed had entered into an agreement with one G.Meena and thereby appointed the petitioner and two others namely Madasamy and Maharajan as security to safeguard the property for the above place from
2019. Thereafter, a dispute arose between the land owner one Meena and the agreement holder Hameed, hence a case has been registered by the Anti-land Grabbing Special Cell – I, Vepery, Chennai. While so, the 2nd and 3rd respondents along with one P.Goverthanan engaged mercenaries and on their instigation and direction, one Noel along with ten persons armed with deadly weapons, knife, iron rod, wooden logs trespassed into our premises, abused us in filthy language and warned the petitioner, Madasamy and Maharajan of losing the lives, if they failed to vacate the premises immediately and soon after the refusal to vacate, the petitioner and two others were vigorously attacked and also threatened them with dire consequences. Immediately, on the same day on 28.09.2023, the petitioner herein gave a complaint to the respondent police station and thereafter, a FIR in Crime No.892 of 2023 was registered. Hence the case.
3. Upon receiving complaint, the case was registered in Crime No.892 of 2023 against the 2nd and 3rd respondents herein under Sections 294(b), 324, 307, 506(ii) of IPC by the 1st respondent police, but the accused went abroad and when they returned, they were brought before the Magistrate, who resisted to remand them and released, hence the defacto complainant had challenged the Order of release before this Court in Crl.O.P.No.23928 of 2021, and the same was allowed and direction was given to respondent police to secure the accused, thereby the accused were remanded to judicial custody. Thereafter, the 2nd and 3rd respondents filed an application for bail in Crl.M.P.No.81 of 2024 before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu and accordingly, the bail was granted with certain conditions to the 2nd and 3rd respondents on 12.01.2024, considering the duration of their custody, injured persons were discharged from the hospital, and co-accused were already granted bail. Now, that Order of bail is challenged before this Court by filing this criminal original petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner/ defacto complainant submits that the Trial Judge has erroneously observed that the dispute between the parties is civil in nature, but the actual case is that the Mother of the 2nd respondent namely Meena, owner of the property had entered into an agreement with one Shaik Abdul Hameed for selling of her property and received a sum of Rs.23 crores but thereafter she refused to comply the terms of the agreement, hence the dispute has aroused between the parties, hence it is not a simple case of civil dispute and there was as fraud committed on the part of the Meena, mother of the 2nd respondent herein. The Trial Judge also failed to note that the petitioner herein and two others were brutally attacked by goondas based on instigation and direction of the 2nd and 3rd respondents / accused herein and also failed to note the injuries sustained and the weapons used to attach the petitioner and two others, who safeguarded the property under dispute between Meena and Shaik Abdul Hameed. However, the Trial Judge without seeing the gravity of offence committed by the 2nd and 3rd respondents has passed the Order of bail, hence pra
