The High Court of Madras granted anticipatory bail to multiple accused in a case alleging theft of temple idols. The court noted rival community claims and the recovery of idols, enforcing daily police appearance.
Order enlarged to bail; execution of bond for Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties; daily appearance at Inspector General office for 30 days.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
( Criminal Jurisdiction )
Thursday, the Sixteenth day of August Two Thousand Eighteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice R. MAHADEVAN and
The Hon`ble Mr Justice P.D.AUDIKESAVALU
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.17681 of 2018
1 R.VENKATACHALAM, [ PETITIONERS / ACCUSED ]
2 C.PALANISAMY,
3 MANI @ P.SENGOTTAIAN,
4 N.T.KANNUSAMY,
5 V.SELVARAJ,
6 K.T.PONNUSAMY,
7 N.BALUSAMY,
8 C.SOUNDARARAJAN,
9 K.K.SUBRAMANI,
10 R.DAKSHINAMOORTHY,
11 VELUSAMY,
Vs
STATE BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, IDOL THEFT WING, CHENNAI. CR.NO.3 OF 2018.
For Petitioner : MR.HAJA NAZURUDHIN, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
M/S.C.PRAKASAM Advocate
For Respondent : MR. P.EMALIAS, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C.
ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-
Apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police in connection with the case in Crime No.3 of 2018 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 380(2) r/w 454(2), 457(2), 202 IPC r/w Section 25(1) of the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, the petitioners have come up with the present petition seeking anticipatory bail.
2.According to the case of the prosecution, the Petitioners and some other persons, in collusion with the then Executive Officer of the temple, removed the old idols from a temple at Vellode Village, Erode District and constructed a new temple without the written https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ permission of the authorities, which resulted in the registration of
the present case.
3.Mr.Haja Nazurudhin, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr.C.Prakasam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the defacto complainant and the petitioners are not belonging to same caste and not worshipping the deity in the old temple situated in Vellode Village named as “Rasasamy” temple, however, with a malafide intention, the defacto complainant lodged the present complaint against the petitioners herein. According to him, the petitioners and others decided to construct a new temple adjacent to the old temple, after obtaining necessary permission from the authorities of H.R.&C.E. Department and accordingly, they constructed a new temple, conducted Kumbabhishekam and at the request of the public and the trust members, they replaced the damaged stone idols and kept the same in safe custody. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged in the complaint and they have been falsely implicated in this case. The learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the idols alleged to have been stolen by the petitioners, are very much available in the new temple.
4.The learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent, on instructions, submitted that the petitioners and some other persons removed 14 stone idols from the temple in question, out of which, only 10 idols were recovered. The learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that the investigation is still pending and hence, the presence of the petitioners are essential for completion of the same.
5.Mr.Chandrasekaran, learned counsel, who appeared on behalf of the then Executive Officer of the temple, submitted that the case is between the two groups of the same communities, who make allegations and counter allegations against each other. The learned counsel further submitted that the idols said to have been stolen are not antiques and are very much available within the premises of the temple in question. Negativing the submissions made on the side of the respondent, the learned counsel submitted that there is no question of theft of idols as alleged in the complaint.
6.Heard the respective counsel and perused the records.
7.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly, there are rival claims and the idols are very much available in the temple premises and also having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, the petitioners are ordered to be enlarged on bail in the event of their arrest by the respondent police or surrender on their appearance within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order before the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned, on the following conditions:-
(i)Each of the petitioners shall execute a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Perunduari, Erode; and
(ii)The petitioners shall appear before the Inspector General of Police, Idol Wing CID, Thiruchirapalli, daily at 10.30 a.m. for a period of 30 days and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation.
8.Accordingly, this petition is ordered.
-sd/16/08/2018
This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned
TRUE COPY Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104. TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, PERUNDURAI, ERODE DISTRICT. 2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE ERODE. [FOR INFORMATION] 3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.
4 STATE BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, IDOL THEFT WING, CHENNAI.
5 THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, IDOL WING CID, THIRUCHIRAPALLI.
+2 CC to M/S.C.PRAKASAM Advocate on payment of necessary charges-Sr.15366
CRL OP.17681/2018 Date :16/08/2018 ths : 20.08.2018
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioners, alleged to have removed stone idols from a temple, are entitled to anticipatory bail.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
R.VENKATACHALAM and others
STATE
R. MAHADEVAN
P.D.AUDIKESAVALU
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
