Former minister jayakumar bail order copy CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA Crl.O.P.No.5467 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.No.3189 of 2022. For Petitioner : Mr.Sanjay R.Hegde, Senior Counsel Mr.A.Natarajan, Senior Counsel for M/s.I.S.Inbadurai For Respondent : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan Additional Public Prosecutor For intervenor : Mr.P.Anandan O R D E R

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 11.3.2022

CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
Crl.O.P.No.5467 of 2022 and
Crl.M.P.No.3189 of 2022

Mr.D.Jayakumar,
S/o. Durairaj.
Vs.
The State rep. by:The Inspector of Police,
Central Crime Branch-I,
Team 16, Anti Land Grabbing Cell, Vepery, Chennai. Petitioner
(Crime No.49/2022). Respondent
P.Magesh Intervenor/ de facto complainant
PRAYER: The Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused on bail pending investigation in Crime No.49 of 2022 on the file of the respondent.
For Petitioner : Mr.Sanjay R.Hegde, Senior Counsel
Mr.A.Natarajan, Senior Counsel for
M/s.I.S.Inbadurai
For Respondent : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan
Additional Public Prosecutor
For intervenor : Mr.P.Anandan
O R D E R
The Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused on bail pending investigation in
Crime No.49 of 2022 on the file of the respondent.
2. The case of the prosecution is as under:-
(i) During the year 1993, the de facto complainant, his father and his brothers viz., Saravanan and Naveeen Kumar, the first accused in this case started a business viz., Aswan Fishnet and during the year 1996 the de facto complainant had purchased 8-3/4 grounds of land in Thuraipakkam and permitted the
Partnership Firm to run the said business on rental basis.
(ii) During the year 2012, the de facto complainant’s father and another brother Saravanan quit from the business and that the de facto complainant and first accused-Naveenkumar continued the
business as a Partnership Firm.
(iii) Whileso, during the year 2016, the second accused became the Minister for Fisheries and intended to start a Fishnet Manufacturing Company on behalf of his son-in-law and thereby, in order to close down the business and to develop the business of his son-in-law, he had instigated his son-in-law and thereby, on
10.8.2016, the first accused and his henchmen, on the instigation of A2, who was the Minister, entered into the factory premises armed with weapons and threatened the de facto complainant to get away from the factory premises and they had disconnected the electricity connection and locked the company. When the de facto complainant had questioned the same, they had threatened him by saying that it had been done on the behest of the Minister and he cannot do anything and they have taken all the files and materials from the factory. The petitioner had attempted to take action, however, the petitioner, who was the Minister by then, had
intervened and thereby the officials did not take any action.
(iv) Whileso, on 3rd June 2020, the de facto complainant, alongwith his wife and mother-in-law, had gone to the place at Thuraipakkam and the first accused, alongwith his wife, who is the daughter of the Minister, had threatened the de facto complainant
and his family members to get away from the premises.
(v) Coming to know about the incident, the Assistant Commissioner of Police and Inspector of Police, Thuraipakkam had arrived at the place and when the de facto complainant had informed them that he had documents to prove that he is the
owner of the property the police officials had advised them that it was pandemic time and asked him lodge the complaint on the next day. Accordingly, on the next day, when the complaint was given, due to the intervention of the first accused Naveenkumar, no
action was taken.
(vi) The further allegation is that the first accused also picked up a quarrel with the father of the de facto complainant during the occurrence that had taken place in the year 2016 and pushed him, due to which, he fell down and sustained injury and
later on, he passed away in the year 2020.
(vii) Fearing about the father-in-law of the first accused, the de facto complainant had not given any complaint to the authority earlier and he had given the complaint to the respondent on 7.6.2021, based on which, FIR was registered on 24.2.2022.
(viii) After the complaint, the first accused had filed a writ petition not to harass and thereby notice under Section 41A was issued to the first accused and after enquiry, FIR came to be registered in Crime No.49 of 2022 for offences punishable under Sections 109, 120(b), 447, 326, 397 and 506(2) IPC and the
petitioner was arrested on 28.2.2022.
3. Mr.Sanjay R.Hegde, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that a family dispute between the brothers has been escalated and thereby a civil dispute has been given a colour as criminal complaint and the petitioner, who was a
former Minister has been implicated. He would submit that admittedly, the dispute is with regard to partition between two brothers and that the first accused in this case has also filed a suit in O.S.No.224 of 2021 before the District Munsif, Alandur. He would further submit that the de facto complainant and the first accused are not strangers and they are brothers and admittedly there are long pending civil disputes between them and after change of Government, only to arm twist the petitioner, a case is filed. He would further submit that earlier, A1 in this case has approached this court seeking for a direction not to harass and this court, by order dated 7.2.2022, had directed the respondent to issue notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. to the first accused and complete the enquiry within a period of three weeks. He would also submit that though the alleged occurrence is said to have taken place during the year 2016, no complaint has been given to any authorities and the de facto complainant has not approached any court to redress his grievance. He would further submit that the petitioner was arrested on 28.2.2022 and the major part of the investigation is completed and therefore, the presence of the petitioner may not be required for investigation in this case. He would submit that in the event of grant of bail, the petitioner
would abide by any stringent condition imposed by this court.
4. Mr.A.Natarajan, learned Senior Counsel, who also appears for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner is a Former Minister and there is a dispute pending between his son-in-law and his brother in running a Fishnet business and the petitioner has been unnecessarily dragged into the issue. The incidents are alleged to have taken place in the year 2016, 2018 and 2020. However, no one has been injured in this case and the presence or involvement of the petitioner has not been spoken by anybody and therefore, the petitioner cannot be held responsible, however, he has been unnecessarily roped into the dispute between his son-inlaw and his brother. He would further submit that the complaint is a belated one having been filed on 7.6.2021 for the occurrence that had taken place during the period from 2016 to 2020 and FIR had been belatedly registered on 24.2.2022. He would further submit that nobody is reported to have been injured in the case and an exaggerated complaint has been given only after there is change of Government. He would submit that the petitioner has strong roots in the society and he is prepared to abide by any stringent condition. He would further submit that taking into consideration the facts of the case, the custodial interrogation of
the petitioner is not required.
5. Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would vehemently oppose stating that the petitioner, who is a Former Minister, abusing his official position, has intervened in the dispute between his son-in-law and his brother and he had taken sides with his son-in-law and by using his henchmen harassed the de facto complainant and threatened him to get away from the factory premises and the henchmen sent by the petitioner had not only threatened the de facto complainant and his family members with lethal weapons but also taken away the machineries and files
from the factory premises. He would further submit that
preliminary enquiry reveals that since the petitioner was a Minister throughout the relevant period, he wielded threat to the family members of the de facto complainant and thereby the de facto complainant was unable to take any action and the complaints given by the de facto complainant to various authorities were not taken into consideration. He would further submit that the petitioner has antecedents even in political matters and in the recent past, during an election process, he had gone to the extent of assaulting and stripping a person and parading him in public and in the same vigour, he is involved in the dispute between his son-in-law and his brother. He would further submit that despite summons being issued to A1, he is not appearing before the
officials for enquiry and the investigation is at the initial stage and
thereby, he would oppose for grant of bail.
6. Mr.P.Anandan, learned counsel appearing for the
intervenor/de facto complainant would vehemently argue that the petitioner, who is he father-in-law of the first accused, has unnecessarily intervened in the family dispute and abusing his power as a Cabinet Minister during the relevant period, has prevented the officials from taking action. The petitioner’s henchmen had not only threatened the de facto complainant but also removed the files and machineries from the factory. He would further submit that till date, the property stands in the name of the de facto complainant however, he is unable to take possession of
the property and thereby he would oppose for grant of bail.
8. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
9. The petitioner is an Ex-Minister. The allegation against him is that he has supported his son-in-law and also harassed the brother of his son-in-law and threatened his family members. The further allegation is that the henchmen of the petitioner had gone to the premises of the de facto complainant armed with weapons and threatened him and his family members. The further
allegation is that such henchmen had also removed some files and
machineries from the premises.
10. Admittedly, the alleged occurrences had taken place during the period from 2016 to 2020, however, the complaint has been given only on 7.6.2021. The FIR has been registered only on 24.2.2022. No one has been injured in any of the occurrence and even for the injury said to have been sustained by the father of the de facto complainant on the assault made on him during the year 2016, no criminal complaint was lodged. Though it is stated by the de facto complainant that the officials did not take any action against the petitioner due to the intervention of the petitioner, no steps have been taken by the de facto complainant to approach the
court seeking redressal of his grievance.
11. It is the settled principle that the court, while granting bail, needs to consider among other circumstances, the following
factors also:-
(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.
12. In the case on hand, though serious offences have been alleged against the petitioner, no injury to any one is reported. The petitioner being an Ex Minister and considering the factum of change of regime, there is no question of probability of tampering with any witness or apprehension of any threat to the complainant. The petitioner has been arrested on 28.2.2022 and has been in custody for about two weeks. Therefore, this court is of the view
that further incarceration of the petitioner or custodial
interrogation may not be required.
13. In view of the above, this court is inclined to grant bail to
the petitioner on the following conditions:-
(a) The Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on executing his own bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only), with two sureties, each for a likesum to the
satisfaction of Judicial Magistrate I, Alandur.
(b) the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the learned Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar Card or Bank Pass Book to ensure their identity;
(c) The petitioner shall stay at Trichy and appear before the
Cantonment Police Station on every Monday, Wednesday and Friday at 10.30 am for a period of two weeks and thereafter appear before the respondent police on every Monday at 10.30 am until
further orders.
(d) the petitioner shall not commit any offences of similar
nature;
(e) the petitioner shall not abscond either during
investigation or trial;
(f) the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness
either during investigation or trial;
(g) on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the Petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the Petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW
5560];
(h) if the accused, thereafter, absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA. J,
ssk.

14. With the above directions, this Criminal Original
Petition is ordered.
11.3.2022 Index : Yes/No. Internet: Yes/No. ssk.
Note to office:-
Issue copy of this order forthwith.
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
Central Crime Branch-I,
Team 16, Anti Land Grabbing Cell, Vepery, Chennai.
2. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras.
Crl.O.P.No.5467 of 2022 and
Crl.M.P.No.3189 of 2022