AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Sardar Zackria Hussain J. 1. The petitioner, M. Sundaresa Iyer(A3) in Crl. O.P. No. 11282 of 2005, who was arrested on 24.12.2004, for the alleged offences punishable u/s 302 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. in Crime No. 914 of 2004 on the file of the Vishnu Kanchi Police Station, seeks bail.
The petitioner, M. K. Raghu(A4) in Crl. O.P. No. 11284 of 2005, who was arrested on 30.12.2004, for the alleged offences punishable u/s 302 read with Section 34 and 120-B of I.P.C. in Crime No. 914 of 2004 on the file of the Vishnu Kanchi Police Station, seeks bail.
The above petitioners, M. K. Raghu(A3) and M. Sundaresa Iyer(A4) in Crl. O.P. No. 11517 of 2005, who were arrested on 28.4.2005 and 26.4.2005 respectively by the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 120B read with 20(1) of NDPS Act in Crime No. 289 of 2005 on the file of the Chengalpattu Town Police Station, Chengalpattu, seek bail.
(i) The petitioner, M. Kathiravan(A5) in Crl.O.P. No. 11325 of 2005, who was remanded to Judicial custody on 9.11.2004 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 34 read with Section 120B of I.P.C. in Crime No.914 of 2004 on the file of the Vishnukanchi Police Station, seeks bail.
(ii) The same petitioner, Kadiravan(A5) in Crl.O.P. No. 11516 of 2005, who was arrested on 20.4.2005 by the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 120B read with 20(1) of NDPS Act in Crime No.289 of 2005 on the file of the Chengalpattu Town Police Station, Chengalpattu, seeks bail.
The petitioner, Chinna alias Rajnikanth(A7) in Crl.O.P. No. 11722 of 2005, who was remanded to Judicial custody on 10.11.2004 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 302 and 34 of I.P.C. in Crime No. 914 of 2004 on the file of the Vishnukanchi Police Station, seeks bail.
(i) The petitioner, Sundaram alias Meenakshisundaram(A13) in Crl.O.P. No. 11723 of 2005, who was remanded to Judicial custody on 6.11.2004 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 201, 213, 214, 34 and read with 120B I.P.C. in Crime No. 914 of 2004 on the file of the Vishnukanchi Police Station, seeks bail.
(ii) The same petitioner, Sundaram alias Meenakshi Sundaram (A2) in Crl.O.P. No. 11515 of 2005, who was arrested by the respondent police on 20.4.2005 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 120B read with 20(1) of NDPS Act in Crime No. 289 of 2005 on the file of the Chengalpattu Town Police Station, Chengalpattu, seeks bail.
The petitioner, K. S. Kumar(A6) in Crl.O.P. No. 11514 of 2005, who was arrested by the respondent police on 20.4.2005 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 120B read with 20(1) of NDPS Act in Crime No. 289 of 2005 on the file of the Chengalpattu Town Police Station, Chengalpattu, seeks bail.
The offence relates to murder of one Sankara Raman, an Administrative Manager of Sri Devarajaswamy Devasthanam, Kancheepuram, by two persons (A6 and A7) armed with aruval causing multiple injuries while four persons (A5, A8, A9 and A10) were waiting outside and after committing the murder escaped on their motor cycles and the said occurrence took place on 3.9.2004 at 5.45 p.m. in the office of the said Devasthanam.
The case of the prosecution in respect of the Crime No. 914 of 2004 of Vishnu Kanchi Police Station, Kancheepuram, is that the conspiracy was entered into on 1.9.2004 and 2.9.2004 by the principal first accused Sri Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal, the senior Shankaracharya of Kanchi Mutt, Kancheepuram with the second accused Sri Vijayendra Saraswathi Swamigal, the junior Shankaracharya of Kanchi Mutt, Kancheepuram along with other co-accused for murdering Sankara Raman. The motive for murdering Sankara Raman is that there was an allegation levelled against the first accused, viz., Sri Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal, in respect of his personal character as well as the functioning as Shankaracharya of the Mutt. The first accused Sri Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal was arrested on 11.11.2004 from Mehboob Nagar in Andhra Pradesh and two bail petitions filed by him in this Court were rejected on 20.11.2004 and 8.12.2004. In the appeal filed by the said accused Sri Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal, in Criminal Appeal No.44 of 2005, the bail was ordered by the Hon''ble Supreme Court on 10.1.2005 and the order is reported in Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal vs. - State of Tamil Nadu ( 2005 1 L.W. 95 : 2005 M.L.J. (Crl.) 55. The Second accused Sri Vijayendra Saraswathi Swamigal was arrested on 10.1.2005 and was released on bail by this Court on 10.2.2005 as per order in Crl.O.P.No.2107 of 2005 and the order is reported in Sankaranarayanan alias Sri Vijayendra Saraswathi Swamigal - vs. - The Inspector of Police, B-2, Vishnu Kanchi Police Station (2005 1 Law Weekly (Crl.) 127. The final report was filed on 21.1.2005 and the petitioners arrested on various dates set out above in connection with murder of Sankara Raman have filed the petitions seeking bail.
The case of the prosecution in respect of Crime No.289 of 2005 of Chengalpattu Town Police Station, is that the accused Akilan alias Sait was arrested on 22.4.2005 at 7.30 p.m. near new bus stand, Chengalpattu for possession of 3 kgs of Ganja and on enquiry, he informed that he was involved in illicit arrack cases and in Veeraraghavan murder case and he came out on bail on 18.4.2005 and that when ne was in jail one month back, Raghu, Sundaresa Iyer and Kadiravan told Meenakshisundaram that Ravi Subramaniam has turned as approver and is going to give evidence against them and therefore he should be eliminated. This was alleged to be conveyed to the said Akilan by Meenakshisundaram since both were in the same block and it is further alleged that Meenakshisundaram has made arrangement for his getting bail and further said that after coming out of the prison, he should meet Kadiravan''s brother Alankar and he would render all help. Meenakshisundram told the said Akilan to arrange good fellows to do the act either in Kancheepuram Court or Chengalpattu Court or in Kancheepuram Sub Jail. It is further stated that one Kumar told Akilan on 27th day that they would come to Chengalpattu Court and Ravi Subramaniam would also come there and there he should be eliminated by engaging persons. In pursuance of that, it is alleged that Akilan came out on bail and met Alankar and obtained Rs. 20,000/-.
The petitioners were detained under Act 14 of 1982 and the same were challenged by the petitioners in H.C.P. Nos. 118, 157, 79, 124, 97 and 109 of 2005 and it was quashed by a Division Bench of this Court as per order dated 5.5.2005.
Heard Mr. B. Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in Crl.O.P. Nos. 11282, 11325, 11722, 11723 and 11514 to 11517 of 2005; Mr. K. S. Dhinakar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Crl.O.P. No. 11284 of 2005; and Mr. K.T.S. Thulsi, learned Senior Counsel for Mr. K. Doraiswamy, Public Prosecutor and assisted by Mr. M.S. Kandaswamy, Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent in all cases.
The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners mainly argued on the ground that the principal first accused Sri Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal was released on bail by the Hon''ble Supreme Court as per order dated 10.1.2005 in Crl.A. No. 44 of 2005 and the junior Sankaracharya, the second accused Sri Vijayendra Saraswathi Swamigal was also released on bail by this Court as per order dated 10.2.2005 in Crl.O.P. No. 2107 of 2005. It is further submitted that these petitioners are in custody from various dates as mentioned above and more than 5 months. It is also submitted that the detention orders under Act 14 of 1982 were set aside by a Division Bench of this Court on 5.5.2005 in the Habeas Corpus Petition Nos. 118, 157, 79, 124, 97 and 109 of 2005. With regard to the facts of the case, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners argued that there is no direct evidence to link these accused with the commission of murder of Sankara Raman and the circumstantial evidence relied on by the prosecution are very weak piece of evidence. In this regard, the learned Senior Counsel further argued that the reliance placed on the copies of 39 letters said to have been written by the deceased and recovered from his house, among which 5 letters were found in the office of H.R. & C.E., Chennai relates to the period 14.8.2001 to 23.1.1002 and one in the residence of A4 and two in the residence of the first accused, was not accepted and believed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court while granting bail to the first accused. As regards payment of money from the Kanchi Mutt or from the trust affiliated or run by the Mutt to the accused Sundaram alias Meenakshisundram (A13) for hiring hirelings to murder Sankara Raman and to the co-accused for committing murder of Sankara Raman either by withdrawing money from the account of the Mutt in ICICI Bank Kancheepuram or by the sale of 50 acres of land belonging to Kanchi Jana Kalyan Trust to Bhargava Federation Pvt. Ltd., for Rs. 5/- crores to which an advance of Rs. 50/- lakhs in cash was received on 30.4.2004, the receipt of which was endorsed on the reverse side of the first page of the agreement, it is stated by the learned Senior Counsel that the receipt said to have been given by Appu for receiving Rs. 10/- lakhs from Ravi Subramaniam which was given by Sri Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal, the copy of the receipt has not been furnished to the accused and the revision filed for furnishing copy is pending in this Court. As regards the cellphone said to have been used by the accused Kadiravan, to which the accused Chinna alias Rajnikanth informed soon after the occurrence about the murder of the deceased, the learned Senior Counsel has stated that the said cellphone is not in the name of Kathiravan. With regard to the identification parade in which according to prosecution, Padma, wife and Uma, daughter of the deceased Sankara Raman said to have identified the accused Chinna alias Rajnikanth at Central Prison, Chennai as the persons who came to the residence to enquire about the deceased on the date of occurrence, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners argued that no reliance can be placed on such identification, since it was conducted four months after the occurrence by which time, the photos of the accused have been flashed in television, newspapers, etc.
With regard to the case of the prosecution that at the direction of Sri Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal, the petitioner Sundaresa Iyer made payment of Rs. 20/- lakhs to the approver Ravi Subramanian and who handed over to Appu under receipt for the purpose of arranging to surrender five persons before the XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai that they murdered the deceased Sankara Raman, it is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that since the payment was made by way of cheque and if really the amount was paid for the purpose as stated by the prosecution, it could not have been by cheque. The learned counsel further argued that since it is the case of the prosecution that the accused Meenakshisundaram only arranged five persons for fake surrender before the XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai and he is not involved in the conspiracy or in the murder of Sankara Raman and as such, the offence u/s 302 I.P.C. is not attracted. The learned Senior Counsel further stated that the accused Chinna alias Rajnikanth has only waited outside and the other accused committed murder of Sankara Raman. The learned counsel also attacked the examination of the accused Ravi Subramanian turned as approver in the committal Court which is not necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned Senior counsel in support the argument advanced has relied on the following decisions:-
(1) Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal vs. - State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2005 M.L.J. (Crl.) 55 : 2005 1 L.W. (Crl.) 95, in which the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held thus:
The considerations which normally weigh with the Court in granting bail in non-bailable offences are, the nature and seriousness of the offence; the character of the evidence; circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; a reasonable possibility of the accused not being present at the trial; reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with; the larger interest of the public or the State and other similar factors which may be relevant in the facts and circumstances of the case.
It is also held thus:
Under Section 10 of the Evidence Act if prima facie evidence of the existence of a conspiracy is given and accepted, the evidence of acts and statements made by any of the conspirators in furtherance of the com-mo i object is admissible against all.
Where the confessions were recorded after the murder when the conspiracy had culminated, Section 10 of the Evidence Act cannot be attracted. The words "common intention" signify a common intention existing at the time when the thing was said, done or written while the conspiracy was on foot are relevant as evidence of the common intention, once reasonable ground has been shown to believe in its existence. Any narrative or statement or confession made to a third party after the common intention or conspiracy was no longer operating and had ceased to exist is admissible against the other party.
(2) Sankaranarayanan alias Sri Vijayendra Saraswathi Swamigal The Inspector of Police, B-2, Vishnu Kanchi Police Station reported in 2005 1 L.W (Cri.) 127, in which this Court has held thus:
The statement of one Ravi Subramaniam recorded u/s 164, Crl.P.C. who had turned approver and that confession statements of co-accused cannot be treated as substantive evidence...At the pretrial stage, when the presumption is available in favour of the accused, that he is innocent, till the guilt is proved, the Court should not embark upon in analyzing the evidence...Confession statement of the co-accused may not stand the test prescribed u/s 10 of the Indian Evidence Act.
(3) Harisingh vs. - State of Haryana reported in 1993 (66) E.L.T. 23 (S.C.), in which the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held thus:
It is true that the system of the justice which is being administered by the Courts, one of the basic principles which has to be kept in view, is that Courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction, should have consistent opinions in respect of an identical set of facts or on question of law. If Courts express different opinions on the identical sets of facts or question of law while exercising the same jurisdiction, then instead by achieving harmony in the judicial system, it will lead to judicial anarchy.
With regard to the case of prosecution in respect of the petitioners in Crl.O.P. Nos. 11514 to 11517 of 2005 that the conspiracy hatched in jail by Sundaresa Iyer, Raghu and others to murder the accused Ravi Subramaniam turned approver when he comes to Chengalpattu Court on 27.4.2005 and the accused Meenakshisundaram (petitioner in Crl.O.P.os. 11723 and 11515 of 2005) informed Alankar, who is the brother of the accused Kathiravan that he will pay necessary amount to meet out the expenses for murdering the approver Ravi Subramaniam and the plan was informed to the accused Akilan who was arrested in Crime No.289 of 2005, it is submitted that the co-accused A7 was granted anticipatory bail by this Court in Crl.O.P. No. 10541 of 2005 dated 3.5.2005 and no case is made out either under N.D.P.S. Act or u/s 120B of I.P.C.
The learned counsel Mr. K.S. Dhinakar appearing for the petitioner in Crl.O.P. No. 11284 of 2005 in addition to the argument advanced for other petitioners submitted that confession statement of co-accused cannot be considered as substantive evidence and in view of the statement of the approver Ravi Subramaniam, the bail sought by the petitioner cannot be denied. Inasmuch as after the enquiry, investigation is over, final report also has been field on 21.1.2005 and since this petitioner is in custody for more than five months, he may be enlarged on bail.
In opposing the bail applications, the learned Senior Counsel Mr. K.T.S. Tulsi, appearing for the State argued at length and made several submissions. The learned Senior Counsel argued that the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court relating to grant of bail to Jayendra Saraswathy Swamigal (2005 M.L.J.(Crl) 55 : 2005 l L.W. (Crl.) 95 )(cited supra) is not the law for general application and not overruled the judgment in the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav and Another, , State of Maharashtra Vs. Damu Shinde and Others, and Nalini (1999) 5 SCC 253 and the judgment of the Supreme Court is confined only to the facts which relate to grant of bail to Jayendra Saraswathy Swamigal. It is further submitted that after grant of bail to Jayendra Saraswathy Swamigal by the Hon''ble Supreme Court as per order dated 10.1.2005, new facts have arisen and the accused Ravi Subramaniam turned approver has given statement implicating all the petitioners with the conspiracy, preparation and commission of the crime. Such statement of approver is corroborated by documentary evidence evidencing the payments made and establishing the contacts with the other conspirators as well as the approver over telephone. The persons named by the approver and in confession given u/s 164 Cr.P.C. by the co-accused have been identified. The learned Senior Counsel further argued that the petitioners are not entitled for bail, since if they are released, they will tamper the evidence and hamper the witnesses. The case of the prosecution, according to the learned Senior Counsel for the State is that the petitioners played significant role in committing murder of Sankara Raman, an Administrative Manager of Sri Devarajaswamy Devasthanam, Kancheepuram and if the offence is proved, even the death sentence can be imposed.
The learned Senior Counsel then argued that besides the confession statement of other co-accused recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. by the Judicial Magistrate, there is also substantive evidence available in the deposition of approver which gives in detail the role played by each petitioners, viz., on 1.9.2004, the accused Jayendra Saraswathy Swamigal summoned the accused Appu, approver Ravi Subramaniam and the petitioner Kathiravan in his personal chamber in the Mutt in relation to the letters being circulated by the deceased. It was in that meeting the accused persons hatched the conspiracy and plan to eliminate the deceased. The petitioner Sundaresa Iyer was also present in that meeting. After the meeting, Jayendra Saraswathy Swamigal asked Appu and Ravi Subramaniam to inform Vijayendra Saraswathy Swamigal as to what transpired in the meeting. Accordingly, Appu and Ravi Subramaniam met Vijayendra Saraswathy Swamigal and informed him about the plan to murder the deceased. On this, Vijayendra Saraswathy Swamigal directed the petitioner M.K. Raghu, also to be present in the room, to arrange for the money to carry out the plan. Before Mahamaham, Jayendra Saraswathy Swamigal gave Rs.l/- lakh to Ravi Subramaniam at Sastha College and asked him to hand over the same to Kathiravan. On 2.9.2004, the accused Kathiravan, approver Ravi Subramaniam, the petitioner Chinna alias Rajnikanth went for recee(sic) of the area prior to assault on the deceased the following day. Jayendra Saraswathy Swamigal gave Rs. 10/- lakhs to Ravi Subramaniam along with a receipt, in duplicate, for forwarding it to Appu. Approver Ravi Subramaniam handed over Rs. 10/- lakhs to the petitioner Kathiravan at the Chola Hotel. The petitioner Kathiravan gave Rs. 10,000/- to the petitioner Chinna alias Rajnikanth. As per the earlier directions of Vijayendra Saraswathy Swamigal, the petitioner M.K. Raghu withdrew an amount of Rs. 5/- lakhs from the ICICI Bank account of SSVS Trust and handed over the same to the approver Ravi Subramaniam for payment to hirelings. Soon after the occurrence, the petitioner Chinna alias Rajnikanth called up the petitioner Kathiravan over cellphone to inform that the deceased had been done to death. The same was forwarded by the petitioner Kathiravan to his employer Appu, who was with him at the relevant time. On 5.10.2004, Jayendra Saraswathy Swamigal gave Rs. 5/- lakhs to the approver Ravi Subramaniam for payment to the petitioner Kathiravan. On his return to Chennai, the approver Ravi Subramaniam gave Rs. 5/- lakhs to the petitioner Kathiravan. On 6.10.2004, the petitioner Sundaresa Iyer gave a cheque of Rs. 5/- lakhs to the approver Ravi Subramaniam and he en-cashed the cheque and gave the money to Appu in the parking lot of Hotel Amaravathy. Appu forwarded the money to the petitioner Kathiravan. After about 10 days of above payment, the petitioner Kathiravan asked Rs. 20/- lakhs for fake surrender. Jayendra Saraswathy Swamigal called the petitioner Sundaresa Iyer in the presence of the approver Ravi Subramaniam and directed him to give Rs. 20/- lakhs to the approver Ravi Subramaniam. On 27.10.2004, the petitioner Sundaresa Iyer gave Rs. 20/- lakhs to the approver Ravi Subramaniam who handed it over to Appu and took receipt. Fake surrender of 5 persons before the XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, claiming to be assigns of the deceased Sankara Raman on the same day.
In this regard, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State further submitted that the statement of approver Ravi Subramaniam implicating the petitioner Kathiravan in respect of the offence committed, viz., the murder of Sankara Raman is corroborated by the telephone records of the calls received by the said petitioner Kathiravan from the petitioner Chinna alias Rajnikanth from Walajabad soon after the occurrence informing him of the murder of the deceased. It is also corroborated by the statements u/s 164 Cr.P.C. of T.A. Kannan(Jayendra Saraswathy Swamigal''s driver) and R. Kannan (PSO of Jayendra Saraswathy Swamigal) in proving the presence of the petitioner Kathiravan in the Mutt on 1.9.2004 and being part of conspiracy to murder the deceased. It is also corroborated with the statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. by Dil Pandian(co-accused) to the effect that the petitioner Kathiravan paid money for fake surrender through the petitioner Meenakshisundaram. Besides, the other witnesses, viz., T.R. Bhaskaran, shop-keeper near the house of the deceased, Dakshinamurthy, parking attendant near place of occurrence, Guide Govindan, a local of the area and Vasikaran Kumar, driver of the Toyota Qualis vehicle of the accused persons on the day of recee to prove the recee on 2.9.2004.
In respect of the petitioner M.K. Raghu, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State submitted that the statement of approver Ravi Subramaniam implicating the petitioner M.K. Raghu in respect of the offence committed, viz., the murder of Sankara Raman is corroborated by the statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of T.A. Kannan(Jayendra Saraswathy Swamigal''s driver) and R. Kannan (PSO of Jayendra Saraswathy Swamigal) in proving the presence of the petitioner M.K. Raghu in the Mutt on 1.9.2004 and being part of conspiracy to murder the deceased, besides the withdrawal of amount of Rs. 5/- lakhs from the ICICI Bank account of SSVS Trust and handing over the same to Ravi Subramaniam for payment to hirelings on the date of the incident and other witnesses, Venkata Krishnan and Nagrajan, Trustees of SSVS Trust, Ramesh, accountant of SSVS Trust and Uma, daughter of the deceased.
In respect of the petitioner Sundaresa Iyer, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State submitted that the statement of approver Ravi Subramaniam implicating the petitioner Sundaresa Iyer in respect of the offence committed, viz., the murder of Sankara Raman is corroborated by the statements u/s 164 Cr.P.C. of T.A. Kannan(Jayendra Saraswathy Swamigal''s driver) and R. Kannan (PSO of Jayendra Saraswathy Swamigal) and the retracted confession of the petitioner Kathiravan with regard to the presence of the petitioner Sundaresa Iyer at the time of conspiracy to murder the deceased on 1.9.2004 and the F.I.R. No. 10 of 2005 dated 4.1.2005 under Sections 420, 463, 465, 468, 471, 474, 201 I.P.C. registered against Sundaresa Iyer, related to forging of financial documents of the mutt with a view to tamper/cause disappearance of evidence and other witnesses, Uma, Padma and family members of the deceased for proving previous assault by the petitioner Sundaresa Iyer on the deceased at the time of his visit to the Mutt and the advocate Anbalagan to prove the issuance of legal notice by the deceased for such assault made to him.
In respect of the petitioner Sundaram alias Meenakshisundaram, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State submitted that the statement of approver Ravi Subramaniam implicating the petitioner Sundaram alias Meenakshisundram in respect of the offence committed, viz., the murder of Sankara Raman is corroborated by the statements u/s 164 Cr.P.C. of the accused Dil Pandian, who was one of the five persons who had falsely surrendered in the case and that the petitioner Meenakshisundram engaged the advocate M. Krishna Kumar to facilitate the fake surrenders of five accused before the XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai and also the recovery of Rs. 10,000/- from the house of the petitioner Meenakshisundaram pursuant to the confession made by the petitioner Meenakshisundaram and which amount was part of the amount paid by the petitioner Kathiravan to arrange for fake surrender and retracted confession of the petitioner Kathiravan.
In respect of the petitioner Chinna alias Rajnikanth, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State submitted that the statement of the approver Ravi Subramaniam implicating the petitioner Chinna alias Rajnikanth in respect of the offence committed, viz., the murder of Sankara Raman is corroborated by the Test identification parade in Central Prison, Chennai during which time the wife and daughter of the deceased Sankara Raman identified this accused and the phone call and the call made by the petitioner Chinna alias Rajnikanth to the co-accused Kathiravan from Walajabad soon after the occurrence, informing him of the murder of the deceased and other prosecution witnesses, viz., Veni, who is PCO Operator at Walajabad; Elumalai, who sold weapon (Aruval) to the petitioner Chinna alias Rajnikanth and which has been recovered; Vasikaran Kumar, driver of the vehicle of the accused persons on the day of occurrence and Selvam, petrol pump operator; identifying the petitioner Chinna alias Rajnikanth.
The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State vehemently contended that the confession of co-accused as well as the statement of the approver is substantive evidence against other accused in respect of the offence of conspiracy. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that pending investigation in the murder of the deceased Sankara Raman, three other cases are also registered, viz., F.I.R. No. 10 of 2005 registered on 4.1.2005 under Sections 420, 463, 465, 468, 471, 474 and 201 I.P.C. of Shivakanchi Police Station, against the Petitioner Sunderesa Iyer, Manager of the Mutt, relating to tamper/cause disappearance of evidence; F.I.R. No. 127 of 2005 registered on 19.2.2005 by Shivakanchi Police Station under Sections 201, 109, 213, 450 and 506 I.P.C. on the complaint of the wife of the approver Ravi Subramaniam that the first accused attempted to bribe the approver and since failed in the attempt, threatened him with dire consequences and F.I.R. No. 289 of 2005 registered on 22.4.2005 u/s 20(1) of NDPS Act read with Section 120B of I.P.C. of Chengalpattu Town Police Station regarding the conspiracy of the petitioners to murder the approver Ravi Subramaniam.
Though final report has been filed after the completion of the investigation on 21.1.2005, according to the learned Senior Counsel for the State, in view of the facts and the circumstances of the case, there is every possibility for tampering the witnesses and hampering the evidence affecting the trial of the case relating to the cruel murder of Sankara Raman on 3.9.2004 at 5.45 p.m. Therefore, according to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State, the bail sought for by the petitioners may not be considered.
In support of his case, the learned Senior Counsel Mr. K.T.S. Tulsi appearing for State has relied on the following decisions:
(1) Kalyan Chandra Sarkar etc. Vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav and Another, , in which, the Hon''ble Supreme Court following the earlier judgment in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav and Another, that
the admissibility or otherwise of the confessional statement and the effect of the evidence already adduced by the prosecution and the merit of the evidence that may be adduced hereinafter including that of the witnesses sought to be recalled are all matters to be considered at the stage of the trial", has held thus:
This Court only applied the requirement of Section 437(1 )(i) Cr.P.C. to the facts of the case and came to the conclusion that there was prima facie case against the respondent, hence, cancelled his bail. Nor has this Court in the case of Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, made any declaration of law. In that case also based on the facts of that case, this Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution had not established a prima facie case as against the accused in that case.
It is also held in paragraph 41 and 42 thus:
In our humble opinion, in the case of Jayendra Saraswathi (supra), this Court only distinguished the facts of that case from the facts of the present case in hand and the question of overruling a judgment on facts does not arise unless, of course, the court is sitting in appeal over the judgment sought to be distinguished. This Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar decided the said case on the facts of that case only, so the question of the said case being overruled in another case does not arise. It is clear from the perusal of Jayendra Saraswathi''s case as well as Kalyan Chandra Sarkar that both the cases have been decided by this Court on their individual facts only.
While deciding the cases on facts, more so in criminal cases the court should bear in mind that each case must rest on its own facts and the similarity of facts in one case cannot be used to bear in mind the conclusion of fact in another case. It is also a well established principle that while considering the ratio laid down in one case, the court will have to bear in mind that every judgment must be read as applicable to the particular facts proved or assumed to be true, since the generality of expressions which may be found therein are not intended to be expositions of the whole of the law, but are governed and qualified by the particular facts of the case in which such expressions are to be found. A case is only an authority for what it actually decides, and not what logically follows from it.
(2) Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav and Another, , in which the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held thus:
The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-application of mind. It is also necessary for the court granting bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are:
(a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence.
(b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant.
(c) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge.
(3) Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh and Another Vs. State of Gujarat and Others, , in which, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held thus:
There can be no analytical, all-comprehensive or exhaustive definition of the concept of a fair trial, and it may have to be determined in seemingly infinite variety of actual situations with the ultimate object in mind viz., whether something that was done or said either before or at the trial deprived the quality of fairness to a degree where a miscarriage of justice has resulted. It will not be correct to say that it is only the accused who must be fairly dealt with. That would be turning a Nelson''s eye to the needs of the society at large and the victims or their family members and relatives. Each one has an inbuilt right to be dealt with fairly in a criminal trial. Denial of a fair trial is as much injustice to the accused as is to the victim and the society. Fair trial obviously would mean atrial before an impartial judge, a fair prosecutor and atmosphere of judicial calm. Fair trial means a trial in which bias or prejudice for or against the accused, the witnesses, or the cause which is being tried is eliminated. If the witnesses get threatened or are forced to give false evidence that also would not result in a fair trial. The failure to hear material witnesses is certainly denial of fair trial.
(4) Smt. Shakila Abdul Gafar Khan Vs. Vasant Raghunath Dhoble and Another, , in which the Hon''ble Supreme Court has ruled thus:
The Courts exist for doing justice to the persons who are affected. The trial/first appellate courts cannot get swayed by abstract technicalities and close their eyes to factors which need to be positively probed and noticed. The court is not merely to act as a tape recorder recording evidence, overlooking the object of trial, i.e., to get at the truth, and oblivious to the active role to be played for which there is not only ample scope but sufficient powers conferred under Cr.P.C. It has a greater duty and responsibility i.e., to render justice in a case where the role of the prosecuting agency itself is put in issue.
(5) Ram Govind Upadhyay Vs. Sudarshan Singh and Others, , in which the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held thus:
Grant of bail though is a discretionary order, but, however, calls for exercise of such a discretion in a judicious manner and not as a mater of course. Order for bail bereft of any cogent reason cannot be sustained. While placement of the accused in the society, though may be considered but that by itself cannot be a guiding factor in the matter of grant of bail and the same ought always to be coupled with other circumstances warranting the grant of bail. The nature of the offence is one of the basic considerations for the grant of bail. More heinous is the crime, the greater is the chance of rejection of the bail, though, however, dependent on the factual matrix of the matter.
Certain other relevant considerations, which are only illustrative and not exhaustive, are as follows:
(a) not only the nature of accusations but the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of the supporting evidence,
(b) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses or apprehension of threat to the complainant,
(c) prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge, and
(d) frivolity and genuineness of the prosecuting, and it is only the element of genuineness that has to be considered in the matter of grant of bail, and in the event of some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail.
(6) State of Maharashtra Vs. Damu Shinde and Others, , in which the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held thus:
Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act permits only a limited use of the confession as against a co-accused to whom a major role is ascribed by the confessor. It is well settled that the confession made by one accused can be used against the co-accused even when the other conditions u/s 30 are satisfied only for the purpose of corroboration of other evidence.
(7) State vs. - Nalini reported in (1999) 5 SCC 253 in which the Hon''ble Supreme Court held thus:
The first condition which is almost the opening lock of that provision is the existence of ''reasonable ground to believe'' that the conspirators have conspired together. This condition will be satisfied even when there is some prima facie evidence to show that there was such a criminal conspiracy. If the aforesaid preliminary condition is fulfilled then anything said by one of the conspirators becomes substantive evidence against the other, provided that should have been a statement ''in reference to their common intention''.
(8) Rampal Pithwa Rahidas and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra, , in which the Hon''ble Supreme Court held thus:
Section 133 of the Evidence Act expressly provides that an accomplice is a competent witness against his co-accused and it renders admissible the testimony of an accomplice against his co-accused. It has, however, been a long settled practice of law that Section 133 of the Evidence Act must be read along with the provisions of Illustration(b) to Section 114 of that Act. Section 114 of the Evidence Act empowers the court to presume the existence of certain facts and Illustration(b) in express terms says that an accomplice is unworthy of credit unless he is corroborated in material particulars. Thus, it follows, that whereas law permits the conviction of an accused person on the basis of the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice by virtue of the provisions of Section 133 who is treated as a competent witness, the rule of prudence embodied in Illustration (b) of Section 114 of the Evidence Act, strikes a note of warning/caution to the courts that an accomplice does not generally deserve to be relied upon, unless his testimony is corroborated in material particulars. Thus as a matter of practice and prudence the testimony of an approver may be accepted in evidence for recording conviction of an accused person provided it receives corroboration from direct or circumstantial evidence in material particulars.
The evidentiary value and the reliability of the statement of the accused Ravi Subramaniam turned approver cannot be gone into at the stage of pretrial. The statement of the approver Ravi Subramaniam will be tested only at the time of trial. Similarly, the admissibility of the confession statement of the co-accused and for using it against the other accused, who have been implicated by the confession of the co-accused also can be gone into only at the time of trial depending on the supportive evidence and corroborated by other evidence and whether such evidence is the substantive evidence. Therefore, the grant of bail for each of the petitioners can be examined even taking into consideration of the statement of the approver Ravi Subramaniam.
The occurrence took place on 3.9.2004. The petitioner Sundaresa Iyer was arrested on 24.12.2004 and the petitioner M.K. Raghu was arrested on 30.12.2004. The statement of the approver Ravi Subramaniam implicating the petitioner Sundaresa Iyer and the petitioner M.K. Raghu is that after the approver introduced Appu alias Krishnasamy in the end of 2001 to Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal and thereafter one day when the approver Ravi Subramaniam met Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal along with the petitioner Kathiravan, Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal told them that two persons were blackmailing him. Approver Ravi Subramaniam consoled him and said that he need not worry about that. Approver Ravi Subramaniam was summoned again by Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal one day at 8.00 a.m. and Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal asked Raghu, brother of Vijayendrar to bring two photographs from the album. Raghu, accordingly brought two photographs of Radhakrishnan and Sankara Raman. Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal asked Raghu to write their address on the reverse side of the photographs. Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal asked the approver Ravi Subramaniam to hand over the cover containing photographs to Kathiravan. On 1.9.2004 at about 7.00 p.m., the approver Ravi Subramaniam went with Appu to Jayabala Hotel at Kancheepuram, where the petitioner Kathiravan was waiting as directed by Appu and then all the three went to the mutt and met Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal and Sundaresa Iyer was also with him then. Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal gave the letter containing the words "Last Warning" as received from Sankara Raman to Appu and told him that hereafter he should not receive any letter from him and directed to eliminate him, for which he was prepared to spend even Rs. 50/- lakhs. Then Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal asked Sundaresa Iyer to disperse the amount through the approver Ravi Subramaniam. When they were in conversation with Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal, the petitioner Kathiravan went out. Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal also stated that not only he was facing problems but also Vijayendrar and directed them to meet Vijayendrar. On instruction from Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal, the approver Ravi Subramaniam and Appu thereafter met Vijayendrar and appraised of the decision taken by Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal to get rid of Sankara Raman. Vijayendrar asked his brother Raghu to make arrangements for payment of money. Further, as per the statement of the approver Ravi Subramaniam it is stated that on 5.10.2004 Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal asked the approver Ravi Subramaniam to come to Kadamalaipudur, near Melmaruvathur and on his going there, Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal asked the approver Ravi Subramaniam to meet Sundaresa Iyer on the next day morning and when the approver Ravi Subramaniam met Sundaresa Iyer accordingly on the next morning and was about to bit down, at once Sundaresa Iyer gave self drawn cheque for Rs. 5/- lakhs and after signing it on both sides, Sundaresa Iyer directed the approver Ravi Subramaniam to pay the amount to Kathiravan. The approver Ravi Subramaniam went to the nearby bank and encashed the cheque and put them in a bag, which was purchased in the opposite shop and proceeded to Chennai. In Chennai, at Amaravathi Hotel car Parking, both the accused Appu and the petitioner Kathiravan were present and the approver Ravi Subramaniam handed over the amount to the accused Appu who in turn gave it to Kathiravan. Then on one day the approver Ravi Subramaniam again met Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal at Kanchi Mutt and both discussed about the vigorous investigation done by the police in Sankara Raman murder case. Approver Ravi Subramaniam pointed out regarding the press interview wherein Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal had revealed that some one of his devotees might be the reason for Sankara Raman murder and the approver Ravi Subramaniam added since he had frequent visits along with his friends, such a nature of interviews would affect the devotees. For which, Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal in a threatening voice cautioned the approver Ravi Subramaniam that none would come to know who had committed the murder of Sankara Raman and added that if it came out, Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal would say that he did not know either Appu or Suppu and then pointing his finger over the head of the approver Ravi Subramaniam, by seating over a cot. Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal said that he would pin point only the approver Ravi Subramaniam. After 10 days the petitioner Kathiravan wanted the approver Ravi Subramaniam to come to Raddisons Hotel. Accordingly, the approver Ravi Subramaniam went there. The Petitioner Kathiravan asked that he needed Rs. 20/- lakhs, for which the approver Ravi Subramaniam asked the reason. The petitioner Kathiravan replied that he had to arrange five false accused in order to be produced in Sankara Raman murder case and that vehicles should be purchased in that regard. The petitioner Kathiravan wanted the approver Ravi Subramaniam to get the money from Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal. Then the approver Ravi Subramaniam contacted Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal and Jayendra Saraswthi Swamigal asked the approver Ravi Subramaniam to come after two days. Accordingly, the approver Ravi Subramaniam met Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal, who in turn called Sundaresa Iyer and directed to give Rs. 20/- lakhs from the advance amount given by Bargav broker. Then the approver Ravi Subramaniam received Rs. 20/- lakhs as well as two receipts for them and returned to Chennai. On next day morning the approver Ravi Subramaniam met Appu and handed over the amount of Rs. 20/- lakhs to him and obtained his signature on one receipt and leaving the other to him.
Therefore, it is clear that on 1.9.2004 during the meeting among Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal, the approver Ravi Subramaniam, the accused Appu and the petitioner Kathiravan at Kancheepuram Mutt, Sundaresa Iyer was also with Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal to whom after the meeting Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal directed to disperse the amount through the approver Ravi Subramaniam. Accordingly, it appears, the petitioner Sundaresa Iyer dispersed the amount thereafter and there is no specific role played by the petitioner Sundaresa Iyer and there is nothing to indicate that he took part in the meeting and made deliberations so as to say that he also conspired along with Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal and others for murdering Sankara Raman.
Similarly in the case of M.K. Raghu, who, it appears, as transpires from the statement of the approver, was not even present during the first meeting on 1.9.2004 and only at the end of the meeting as per the direction of Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal, the approver Ravi Subramaniam, the accused Appu and the petitioner Kathiraven met Vijayendrar and appraised of the decision taken by Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal to get rid of Sankara Raman and at that time, Vijayendrar asked his brother Raghu, the petitioner in Crl.O.P. No. 11284 of 2005 to make arrangement for payment of money. Therefore, there is nothing to indicate that the petitioner Raghu also conspired along with other co-accused for murdering Sankara Raman.
As regards the case of the prosecution that the petitioner Sundaresa Iyer tampered with the Mutt records in order to cause disappearance of the evidence and the F.I.R. also registered in Crime No. 10 of 2005 of Sivakanchi police station and even records are tampered as such, it could have been only at the direction of Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal.
With regard to the petitioner Sundaram alias Meenakshi sundaram, the case of the prosecution is that the petitioner Kathiravan through the petitioner Meenakshisundaram arranged five persons for fake surrender before the XV Metropolitan Magistrate by receiving money. As such, even according to the prosecution, the petitioner Sundaram alias Meenakshisundaram is not a co-conspirator with the co-accused Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal, the approver Ravi Subramaniam and the petitioner Kathiravan for murdering Sankara Raman. The Petitioner Meenakshisundaram has only received the money as gratification. Further, Meenakshisundram had no common intention for murdering Sankara Raman. The other offences alleged against him under Sections 201, 213 and 214 I.P.C. are all bailable offences. The petitioner Meenakshisundaram has come into picture only after commission of the offence of the murder of Sankara Raman for screening the offender who committed the murder of Sankara Raman for gratification and therefore, the offence u/s 120B I.P.C. is not attracted.
It follows that the petitioners Sundaresa Iyer, M.K. Raghu and Sundaram alias Meenakshisundram in Crl.O.P. Nos. 11282, 11284 and 11723 of 2005 respectively are entitled for bail in the case of murder of Sankara Raman since prima facie case is made out by imposing conditions, in that it is alleged that even after filing of final report, they will tamper witnesses and hamper the evidence.
As regards the bail sought by the petitioner Kathirvan, who is in custody from 9.11.2004, the statement of the approver makes it clear supported by other evidence that he conspired with the other accused for murdering Sankara Raman along with the petitioner Chinna alias Rajnikanth and other co-accused. It is stated that money has been paid to him by Kanchi Mutt as per the direction of Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal through Sundaresa Iyer and also the petitioner Raghu for such crime committed and also for producing fake surrender of five persons before the XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town Madras, for screening the offenders from legal punishment, claiming to be assigns of the deceased Sankara Raman and to misdirect the investigation in a different line. The phone calls have also been made through a particular number of cellphone which was used by the petitioner Kathiravan and the petitioner Chinna alias Rajnikanth also informed to the said cellphone immediately after commission of the murder of Sankara Raman from STD Booth at Walajabad and the petitioner Kathiravan also informed the same to the approver Ravi Subramaniam in hotel Chola on the same day evening.
Therefore, considering all the facts and circumstances of the case though final report has been filed, it is not desirable to grant bail to the petitioner Kathiravan in Crl.O. No. 11325 of 2005 and Chinna alias Rajnikanth in Crl.O.P. No. 11722 of 2005 in the case of murder of Sankara Raman.
The petitioner K.S. Kumar in Crl.O.P. No. 11514 of 2005, the petitioner Sundaram alias Meenakshisundaram in Crl.O.P. No. 11515 of 2005, the petitioner Kathiravan in Crl.O.P. No. 11516 of 2005 and the petitioners M.K. Raghu and Sundaresa Iyer in Crl.O.P. No. 11517 of 2005 in Crime No.289 of Chengalpattu Town Police Station seek bail stating that they have not conspired in Central Prison, Chennai for murdering the approver Ravi Subramaniam when he comes to Chengalpattu Court and the offence u/s 20(1) of NDPS Act as against these petitioners is not attracted. The case of the prosecution itself as per the F.I.R. registered in Crime No. 289 of 2005 is that the accused Akilan was found in possession of 3 kgs of Ganja during which time and on enquiry he revealed the conspiracy said to have been hatched in Central Prison, Chennai by the petitioners K.S. Kumar, Sundaram alias Meenakshisundram, Kathiravan, M.K. Raghu and Sundaresa Iyer for murdering the approver Ravi Subramaniam in the Chengalpattu Court and as such, there is no satisfactory evidence in respect of the offence u/s 120B I.P.C. against the petitioners K.S. Kumar, Sundaram alias Meenakshisundaram, Kathiravan, Raghu and Sundaresa Iyer. The accused Alankai, the brother of Akilan has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court as per order dated 3.5.2005 in Crl.O.P. No. 10541 of 2005. Though the F.I.R. was registered on 22.4.2005, there is no supporting evidence that these petitioners, viz., K.S. Kumar, Sundaram alias Meenakshisundaram, Kathiravan, M.K. Raghu and Sundaresa Iyer, conspired for murdering the approver Ravi Subramaniam when he comes at Chengalpattu Court and the petitioner Sundaram alias Meenakshisundaram informed the same to the accused Akilan involved in Crime No. 289 of 2005 and who in turn revealed the same when he was enquired at the time of arrest. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances, the petitioner K.S. Kumar in Crl.O.P. No. 11514 of 2005; the petitioner Sundaram alias Meenakshisundaram in Crl.O.P. No. 11515 of 2005; the petitioner Kathiravan in Crl.O.P. No. 11516 of 2005; and the petitioners Raghu and Sundaresa Iyer in Crl.O.P. No. 11517 of 2005, involved in Crime No.289 of 2005 of the Chengalpattu Town Police Station are enlarged on bail.
In view of the discussions made above, the following orders are made:
(1) Crl.O.P. No. 11282 of 2005 is allowed. The petitioner Sundaresa Iyer is ordered to be released on bail subject to the following conditions:
(i) the petitioner Sundaresa Iyer is to execute a bond for Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Kancheepuram and
(ii) the petitioner Sundaresa Iyer shall remain in Villupuram and report before the Villupuram Town Police Station daily at 10.00 a.m. and 5 p.m. until further orders.
(2) Crl.O.P. No. 11284 of 2005 is allowed. The petitioner M.K. Raghu is ordered to be released on bail subject to the following conditions:
(i) the petitioner M.K. Raghu is to execute a bond for Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Kancheepuram and
(ii) the petitioner M.K. Raghu shall remain in Coimbatore and report before the Coimbatore City Police Station daily at 10.00 a.m. and 5 p.m. until further orders.
(3) Crl.O.P. No. 11723 of 2005 is allowed. The petitioner Sundaram alias Meenakshisundaram is ordered to be released on bail subject of the following conditions:
(i) the petitioner Sundaram alias Meenakshisundaram is to execute a bond for Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Kancheepuram and
(ii) the petitioner Sundaram alias Meenakshisundaram shall remain in Tiruchy and report before the Tiruchy City Police Station daily at 10.00 a.m. and 5 p.m. until further orders.
(4) Crl. M.P. No. 4006 of 2005 in Crl.O.P. No. 11723 of 2005 is closed.
(5) Crl.O.P. Nos. 11325 and 11722 of 2005 are dismissed.
(6) Crl.O.P. No. 11514 of 2005 is allowed. The petitioner K.S. Kumar is ordered to be released on bail subject to the following conditions:
(i) the petitioner K.S. Kumar is to execute a bond for Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Special Court, NDPS Act Cases, Chennai and
(ii) the petitioner K.S. Kumar shall remain in Chengalpattu and report before the Town Police Station, Chengalpattu daily at 10.00 a.m. and 5 p.m. until further orders.
(7) Crl.O.P. No. 11515 of 2005 is allowed. The petitioner Sundaram alias Meenakshisundaram is ordered to be released on bail subject to the following conditions :
(i) the petitioner Sundaram alias Meenakshisunjdaram is to execute a bond for Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Special Court, NDPS Act Cases, Chennai and
(ii) the petitioner Sundaram alias Meenakshisundaram shall remain in Tiruchy and report before the Tiruchy City Police Station daily at 10.00 a.m. and 5 p.m. until further orders.
(8) Crl.O.P. No. 11516 of 2005 is allowed. The petitioner Kathiravan is ordered to be released on bail subject to the following conditions:
(i) the petitioner Kathiravan is to execute a bond for Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Special Court, NDPS Act Cases, Chennai and
(ii) the petitioner Kathiravan shall remain in Chengalpattu and report before the Town Police Station Chengalpattu daily at 10.00 a.m. and 5 p.m. until further orders.
(9) Crl.O.P. No. 11517 of 2005 is allowed. The petitioners M.K. Raghu and Sundaresa Iyer are ordered to be released on bail subject to the following conditions :
(i) the petitioners M.K. Raghu and Sundaresa Iyer are to execute a bond for Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Special Court for NDPS Case, Chennai and
(ii) the first petitioner M.K. Raghu shall remain in Coimbatore and report before the Coimbatore City Police Station daily at 10.00 a.m. and 5 p.m. until further orders.
(iii) the second petitioner Sundaresa Iyer shall remain in Villupuram and report