accused for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324, 506(ii) I.P.C., and Section 4 of TNPHW Act. Subsequently, the incident in this case had happened on 31.03.2021 as narrated above. From the photographs produced, it is revealed that the injuries sustained by the victim were not simple injuries and it appears they are grievous injuries. Not only that, some of the petitioners in this case, viz., A.2-Mohamed Aasic @ Ashick, A.3-Mohamed Asath, A.4-Samsammal, A.7-Rishwan were also the accused in Cr.No.88 of 2021. The learned Counsel for the first accused submitted that the first accused is holding an important position in a political party and in fact, on 31.03.2021 - the alleged date of occurrence, he was in campaign for a political party. Prosecution case is that the first accused was very much present at the scene of occurrence and it was he, who attacked the victim with aruval. This aspect has to be considered only at the time of trial. Due to the property dispute, both parties are fighting with each other by using deadly weapons to attack the family members of the defacto complainant. It creates problem not only to the defacto complainant and his family members, but also to the members of the society at large because of the unrest created by this mad violence. Both occurrences had happened within a short span of time. The accused A.2, A.3, A.4 and A.7 had involved in both the incidents in Cr.No.88 of 2021 and in Cr.No.138 of 2021 and it shows that they have no respect for law and that they have taken the law into their own hands to settle their issues. Though the injured has been discharged from the hospital, considering the manner and impunity, with which the incident had occurred and the violence unleashed, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the first accused and the anticipatory bail to other accused. Having got the interim bail on the ground of ill health, the first accused is not expected to freely roam and attend functions. It is clear from the photo that he is hale and healthy. Therefore, the alleged ill-health set up by him to seek interim bail is doubtful. Taking note of all these facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner/A.1 in Crl.O.P. (MD)No.6579 of 2021 is not entitled for bail and the petitioners/A.2 to A.7 in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6650 of 2021 are not entitled for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, both the petitions are dismissed.
