K. Gandhi vs J. Ganesan

P.N. Prakash, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the State / R4.

This is a petition for cancellation of the anticipatory bail that has been granted by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Villupuram to the respondents 1 to 3 herein. The de facto complainant is the petitioner before this Court.

It is the case of the prosecution that one Neela Narayanan has lands adjacent to the lands belonging to Pandian, who is the elder brother of the de facto complainant. It is stated in the complaint that Neela Narayanan is quarrying in his land and his vehicles passed through the lands of Pandian and damaged the crops. This was objected to by Pandian and the de facto complainant.

On 25.03.2014 around 6.30 in the evening, when crusher lorries belonging to the said Neela Narayanan passed through the lands of Pandian, his brothers questioned Neela Narayanan. Incensed by that, it is stated in the complaint that Ganesan, Elumalai and Neela Narayanan indiscriminately attacked Pandian with iron rods and caused serious injuries to him. Pandian was carried by the de facto complainant in an ambulance to the nearby Government Hospital in Tindivanam, where he was given first aid and thereafter, he was shifted to Jipmer Hospital, Pondicherry. On the very same day, the injured was taken from Jipmer Hospital, Pondicherry to MIOT Hospital, Chennai, because the de facto complainant found serious fracture in the right fore arm. After admitting Pandian in the MIOT Hospital, the de facto complainant came to the Police Station and lodged a written complaint, based on which a case in Crime No. 140 of 2014 under Sections 294(b), 324, 448, 506(ii) and 307 IPC was registered by Police on 26.03.2014 at around 3.00 p.m. against Ganesan (A1), Elumalai (A2) and Neela Narayanan (A3). On the next day, i.e., 27.03.2014, these three accused approached the Sessions Court for anticipatory bail, which came up for hearing on 28.03.2014 and the said Court was pleased to pass the following order:

"Heard both sides. The petitioners have been charged for the alleged offences u/s. 294(b), 448, 324, 506(ii) and 307 IPC. The dispute is between two brothers, namely, the petitioner and the complainant with regard to the business dealing in blue metal and the injured person has been discharged from the hospital is the submission made by the learned public prosecutor. Hence, this court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners on the following conditions:"

Mr. C. Prakasam, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents submitted that there is no infirmity with the order of the Sessions Court and that pursuant to the order, they have been complying with the conditions imposed thereon. He also submitted that when the injured was discharged from the Jipmer Hospital, Pondicherry, the anticipatory bail petition was considered by the Sessions Court and therefore, there is no illegality in the said order.

On the contrary, a mere reading of the complaint, which forms basis for registration of the FIR, shows that after brutal attack, the injured was carried by the de facto complainant to the Government Hospital, Tindivanam and from there, he was taken to Jipmer Hospital, Pondicherry and again shifted from there to MIOT Hospital in Chennai for advanced orthopedic surgery. The complaint has been given only after admitting the injured in the MIOT Hospital. Therefore, at the time when the anticipatory bail was under consideration, injured was not discharged and he was an inpatient in the MIOT Hospital. That apart, learned Sessions Judge has stated that the dispute is between brothers, which is not true. Brothers are the aggrieved parties and the assailant Neela Narayanan is the adjacent land owner.

Looking at from any angle, I find that the order of the Sessions Court is not sustainable. The injured was treated as an inpatient in the MIOT Hospital and yet to undergo a complicated surgery, which resulted in internal fixation of plate. The assault seems to be a pre-planned one and the motive appears to be that the accused, who are mine operators, have been trespassing into the lands of the victim with impunity on account of the muscle and money power.

Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Prasanta Kumar Sarkar Vs. Ashis Chatterjee and Another, , wherein parameters for granting bail have been succinctly categorized.

Taking into consideration the gravity of allegations against the respondents 1 to 3 in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the order of granting anticipatory bail to them does not satisfy the parameters, laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment.

In the result, this petition is allowed. The order dated 28.03.2014, passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Villupuram is set aside and the anticipatory bail granted to the respondents / accused 1 to 3 herein, is cancelled. Consequently, the bail bonds and the sureties furnished by the accused are cancelled and it is directed that they will be taken into custody forthwith. Needless to add that observations touching the merits of the case against the accused are purely for the purpose of deciding the question of grant of bail and if in future any such application is filed by the accused, it shall be considered on its own merits untrammelled by any of these observations.