IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:20.12.2010 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T.MATHIVANAN Crl.O.P.No.28520 of 2010 1.Rajesh 2.Sathish 3.R.Dhanabal 4.C.Velusamy 5.A.Santhosh 6.Parameshwaran 7.Jagadeesh 8.Periya Babu .... Petitioners Vs. The State represented by The Inspector of Police B6, Peelamedu Police Station Coimbatore ..... Respondent Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to grant anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest by the respondent police in connection with the case in Crime No.1263 of 2010 on the file of the respondent. For Petitioners : Mr.R.N.Amarnath For Respondent : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervenor : Mr.R.C.Paul Kanagaraj O R D E R Invoking the proviso to section 438 of Cr.P.C. the petitioners have approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail, in the event of their arrest, by the respondent Police in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ connection with the case in crime No.1263 of 2010, for the alleged commission of offence under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324 and 307 of I.P.C. 2.Totally, 13 accused have been implicated in this case. Out of which, four accused were already arrested and remanded to judicial custody. The case of the prosecution is that on account of political enmity, the petitioners along with other accused had formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons and assaulted the complainant Selvakumar and one Naresh with iron rod and stone and thereby they had inflicted serious injuries over their head. It is also alleged that the first petitioner herein had given a strong blow with stone over the head of injured Naresh and caused depressed fractures over the skull. On the strength of the complaint lodged by one of the injured Selvakumar, this case came to be registered. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that on 11.09.2010, at about 09.00 p.m. when one Dinesh was on the way to attend the Vinayaga Chadhurthi festival, one Naresh and others were sitting near the bridge. While so, the said Naresh had abused the said Dinesh, who is a minor and caused injury over the right cheek and right hand with a broken beer bottle. In this connection, a complaint was given before the respondent Police and a case was also registered in Crime No.317 of 2010, under Sections 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(i) I.P.C. The injured Dinesh was also admitted in the hospital and the case is still pending investigation. 4.Further, he has also submitted that the other case in Crime No.318 of 2010 also came to be registered on the basis of the complaint given by the persons, who had beaten the above said Dinesh. The learned counsel has also submitted that the petitioners had never committed any such offence as alleged by the prosecuting agency and they had only rescued the said Dinesh from the hands of Naresh and others. Similarly placed two bail petitions in Crl.O.P.No.24254 of 2010 and 25328 of 2010 were already dismissed on 20.10.2010 and 24.11.2010 respectively, on the ground that the injured Naresh had been undergoing treatment in the hospital under the name and style of Kovai Medical Center and Hospital Limited. He has also maintained that initially the injured Naresh was admitted in the hospital on 11.09.2010 and subsequently he was discharged on 27.09.2010 and for the second time he was taken to the hospital on 09.11.2010 and discharged on 16.11.2010 and that there may not be any impediment for this https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Court, in granting anticipatory bail, in favour of the petitioners as the materials part of investigation has already been completed. He has also added that the case in Crime No.318 of 2010, which was originally registered by the Kovilpalayam Police has been transferred to the respondent Police, in pursuant to the order of the Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore City and now that case has been taken on file by the respondent Police in Crime No.1263 of 2010, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324 and 307 I.P.C. He has also maintained that only for wrecking vengeance on the political vendetta, the case has been foisted against the petitioners and that whenever anticipatory bails are filed, the injured Naresh is in the habit of admitting himself in the hospital to make it appear that he has been continuously undergoing treatment, so as to prevent the petitioner from getting relief of anticipatory bail. 5.On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that as adverted to by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the case in Crime No.318 of 2010, on the file of the Kovilpalayam Police Station, has been transferred to the file of the respondent Police in pursuant to the proceedings of the Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore City, vide No.C.No.G1/67780/10, dated 23.09.2010 and that the investigation is in the crucial stage. Hence, he has strongly opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. He has also submitted that in sofar as this case is concerned, four accused viz.1.Dinesh, 2.Rajesh @ Maduraikara Rajesh, 3.Pandidurai and 4.Balachandran were arrested and their respective confessional statements were also recorded and thereafter remanded to judicial custody. Further, he has submitted that the crime weapons were also recovered from them. 6.The learned Public Prosecutor has also submitted that the Rajesh @ Maduraikara Rajesh had attacked the injured Naresh with an iron rod on his head with the criminal intention of to do away with his life. Further, he has also submitted that the second accused Rajesh has also attacked the complainant Selvakumar and Naresh with the help of stone and that he has vehemently objected to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. He has also fairly submitted that as per the medical report, in respect of the complainant Selvakumar, the Doctor has opined that no external injury were found over the body of Selvakumar and Arunkumar. 7.The learned Public Prosecutor has also canvassed that during the course of investigation it is revealed from the statement of Dr.Balakumar, Medical Officer of Kovai Medical https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Center, Coimbatore, that due to to head injury the said injured Naresh was referred to CT Scan and later surgery was performed over his skull and he has also submitted that the injured Naresh has once again been admitted in the Kovai Medical Center, Coimbatore, on 01.12.2010 and still he is undergoing treatment as inpatient. He has also maintained that under this circumstance, it may not be proper to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 8.This Court has carefully gone through the entire CD file. It appears that on account of political enmity there was exchange of blows between two groups and the Selvakumar and injured Naresh had sustained injuries and in particular Naresh had sustained serious injury over his head. As per the medical report submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the injured Naresh had sustained severe head injury viz.Communited depressed fractive over his skull with contusion on brain over his left tempero parietal. It also appears that he was originally admitted to Kovai Medical Center, Coimbatore on 11.09.2010 and subsequently discharged on 27.09.2010. Thereafter, once again, he was admitted to Kovai Medical Center, Coimbatore on 09.11.2010 and subsequently discharged on 16.11.2010. It is also revealed that the injured Naresh was treated in the above said hospital for severe head injury and also operated. It is also revealed from the discharge summary dated 16.11.2010 that the injured Naresh did not have any current evidence of ongoing mental or behavioural disorders secondary to brain injury and he shall however be evaluated in the future if necessary. It is also clear from the medical report that his clinical assessment was normal. In sofar as the present bail application is concerned, it is evident from the CD file that it appears that serious allegations are levelled only against the first petitioner Rajesh and in sofar as the petitioners 2 to 8 are concerned, no such serious allegations are levelled. 9.Having regard to the related facts and circumstances and also considering the overt acts attributed to the petitioners, this Court is of opinion that the anticipatory bail for the first petitioner may be dismissed and the relief of anticipatory bail in respect of the remaining petitioners viz.petitioners 2 to 8 may be granted. 10.Accordingly, the petition in respect of the first petitioner is dismissed and the petitioners 2 to 8 are directed to be released on bail in the event of their arrest at the hands of the respondent Police subject to the following conditions; https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (a) that each of the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Learned Judicial Magistrate-VI, Coimbatore; [and] (b) that the petitioners are directed to appear before the respondent police, daily at 10.00 a.m., until further orders. Sd/- Deputy Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar. krk To 1.Inspector of Police B6, Peelamedu Police Station Coimbatore. 2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras – 600 104. 1 cc to Mr.R.C. Paul Kanagaraj, Advocate, Sr. 22462 1 cc to M.R.N. Amarnath, Advocate, Sr. 22279 Crl.O.P.No.28520 of 2010 VSV (CO) kk 22/12 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/