Allowed

K.T.Ponnusamy, M/45 v. State Rep by Its

Madras HC16 Aug 2018CRL OP/19937/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to accused persons in a theft of antiquities case, directing the Commissioner of Heritage to preserve an ancient dilapidated temple and submit a report by 30.09.2018 regarding steps taken, after finding no issue of theft as stolen idols were recovered.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on bail executing a bond for Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties, conditionally appearing before IG Police twice weekly for one month for interrogation. Commissioner directed to report

K.T.Ponnusamy, M/45 Vs State Rep by Its — Property and Title | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Thursday, the Sixteenth day of August Two Thousand Eighteen

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr Justice R.MAHADEVAN

¶6

AND

¶7

The Hon`ble Mr P.D.AUDIKESAVALU

¶8

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.19937 of 2018

¶9

1 K.T.PONNUSAMY [ PETITIONERS / ACCUSED ]
2 VELUSAMY

¶10

¶11

STATE REP BY ITS [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, IDOL WING CID, CHENNAI, IN ERODE NORTH POLICE STATION, CR.NO.03 OF 2018, ERODE DISTRICT

¶12

For Petitioner : MR.VIJAYAN SENIOR COUNSEL FOR M/S.K.M.VIJAYAN ASSOCIATES Advocate

¶13

For Respondent : M/S.P.EMALIUS Public Prosecutor

¶14

PETITION FOR BAIL 439 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶15

The petitioners/A1 & A2, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 29.07.2018 in connection with the case in Crime No.03 of 2018 on the file of the respondent police, for the offences punishable under Sections 454(2), 457(2), 202 IPC r/w Section 25(1) of the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, have filed this petition, seeking bail.

¶16

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 and constructed a new temple without the written permission of the authorities, which resulted in the registration of the present case.

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶18

3.Mr.K.M.Vijayan, learned Senior 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.

¶19

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, opposed the bail sought by the petitioners.

¶20

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.

¶21

6.We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the records. We have also seen the photographs of the old temple, which appears to be ancient and it is now in a dilapidated condition. The temple has to be necessarily protected and the Commissioner, H.R&CE Department, Chennai, shall take necessary steps, for preservation of the old temple immediately and file a report of the action taken in this regard by 30.09.2018.

¶22

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 on either side, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on each of them executing a bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam and on further condition that the petitioners shall appear before the Inspector General of Police, Idol Wing CID,

¶23

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶24

Thiruchirapalli, twice a week at 10.30 a.m. for a period of one month and thereafter as and when required for interrogation.

¶25

8.Accordingly, this petition is ordered.

¶26

Post for reporting compliance by the Commissioner, H.R&CE Department, Chennai, on 30.09.2018.

¶27

-sd/-

¶28

16/08/2018

¶29

This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned

¶30

TRUE COPY Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104. TO

¶31

1 THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KUMBAKONAM

¶32

2 THE COMMISSIONER, H.R.&CE. DEPARTMENT, CHENNAI 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, IDOL WING CID, CHENNAI, IN ERODE NORTH POLICE STATION 4 THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, IDOL WING CID, THIRUCHIRAPALLI

¶33

5 THE OFFICER INCHARGE SUB - JAIL, ERODE

¶34

+1CC to M/S.K.M.VIJAYAN ASSOCIATES Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.NO. 15315

¶35

CRL OP.19937/2018 Date :16/08/2018 cm 20/08/2018

¶36

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

K.T.Ponnusamy, M/45 v. State Rep by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.T.Ponnusamy, M/45 v. State Rep by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Eswaran, Aged 55 Years, Vs State Rep. by

M.Kavitha, Aged 52 Years Vs State Rep. by

Manoharan, M/27 Years Vs State Rep by

R.Venkatachalam, Aged 75 Years Vs State by

Elephant G.Rajendran, Vs The Chief Secretary

R.Silambu @ Silambarasan, Vs State Rep. by