] Rubt Mhc Advt: Four Questions of Law are involved in the dismissal of the Anticipatory Bail petition of Arumugham and Balaji

[5/11, 14:55] Rubt Mhc Advt: Four Questions of Law are involved in the dismissal of the Anticipatory Bail petition of Arumugham and Balaji. The 5 Judges recent judgment of the Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench on Anticipatory Bail not followed and gross violation the provisions of CrPC and Constitution of India.

The 1st question is whether the AIADMK functionary Rajini’s complaint is maintainable in law or not?
2nd question is in cases of this nature the complainant is the State or not?
3rd question A Whatapp Group of Cuddalore Posted the photograph of Industries Minister M.C. Sampath along with a message that “Minister is missing in COVID-19 pandemic” Is it a Defamatory Statement or not?
4th question If it is taken as criticizing MLA by his constituency people posting grievance against Minister M.C. of government machinery is a criminal offence?
The complaint of AIADMK functionary Rajini is with a mala fide and ulterior intention. Its a politically motivated complaint for his local political postings or for any other thing. The accused are Arumugham and Bajai the later is the husband of Mahalakshmi, the Panchayath Union President must be in the rival political party and the law is abused.

What’s the meaning of “Missing” in its simple sense? “Not able to be found” “Not to be seen anywhere” “Whereabouts are unknown” or “Not present to be seen” “Not found despite of being searched” “expected, required or desired to be seen but could not ”

In the present context the apt meaning for Missing is “Not present to be seen” or “Not found despite of being searched”. M.C. Sampath is the elected MLA from the Cuddalore constituency and he is therefore the Voice of Cuaddalore in the TN State Assembly. The COVID19 is wiping out the global population and it still continues and all are in the grip of fear of death by corona. It’s natural at this time of hour the electorates of Cuddalore expect their MLA to be in or at least visit frequently Cuddalore and all just for relief and solace but they haven’t seen him in the constituency. The local wahtsapp group is having the right to post such poster and also have the right to criticize his absence in his constituency that’s because they are the electorate of him. It’s their Fundamental Right under the Constitution of India and their criticism will never be a criminal offence neither under the IPC and IT Act.

The posting could be of this reason too to attract his attention or to convey him through some other source that his constituency people are missing him in this crucial time and the poster in this format does not attract any criminal offence.

Answer to 1st question is that the AIADMK functionary Rajini’s complaint is a Publicity Interest Complaint (PIC) made with a mala fide intention and ulterior political motive The main issue of law is that he has no locus standi to lodge the complaint as he is not the aggrieved person in any manner and therefore Arumugham and Balaji should have been given Anticipatory Bail.

Answer to 2nd question is that it’s the State that has the legal competency to lodge the complaint after complying the provision of Section 199(2) and (4)(a) of CrPC and authorizing the District Public Prosecutor to file a complaint before the District and Sessions Court. The Minister has the right to file a private complaint before the Magistrate under Section 200 of CrPC for the alleged offence under Section 500 IPC. In any event Arumugham and Balaji ought to have been given the relief of Anticipatory Bail.

Answer to 3rd question is that whether posting the photograph of Industries Minister M.C. Sampath along with a caption Minister is missing during the COVID-19 pandemic attract the ingredients of Section 500 of IPC or not? The poster does not fit in to the section and only when it fits in all other allied sections and Act comes into action. Hence Anticipatory Bail should have been granted to Arumugham and Balaji.

Answer to 4th question is that the electorates of Cuddalore constituency have every right to criticize the Minister as he was elected by them. If the Minister’s performance is not up to the mark or expectation more particularly in COVID19 they can criticize. No wonder a political debate is going on the right of recalling the elected by the electorates for such an enactment. If the poster is taken in sarcastic sense still it’s not an offence to attract Section 500 IPC and every criticism of the government and its machinery is not a criminal offence. In any event it is taken as an offence even though not admitted by me still Arumugham and Balaji should have been given the benefit of granting Anticipatory Bail.

Plethora of Judgments of Supreme Court’s is there when and when not to be granted Anticipatory Bail. The latest judgment of 5 Judges of Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench has dealt in detail about Anticipatory Bail and the aspect of Fundamental Right Freedom Liberty and so on. Section 438 is viewed as the provision that protects personal liberty, which lies at the heart of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Judgment is binding through ought India under Article 142 of the Constitution of India but it was completely ignored in the case of Arumugham and Balaji and their Anticipatory Bail was dismissed to a case which has no maintainability in law.

The legal doors for Arumugham and Balaji is still wide open and they can file petition under Sec482 of CrPC to quash the FIR for the reasons that the complaint is not maintainable in law in view of non-compliance of Section 199(2)and (4)(a) of CrPC.

One of the stunning aspect in the case of Arumugham and Balaji’s Anticipator Bail case is that under Section 438 of CrPC the Additional Public Prosecutor T. Shunmugarajeswaran seeking for custodial interrogation without arrest as though those two have committed the gravest offence.

In totality the dismissal of the Anticipatory Bail petition filed under Section 438 of CrPC by Arumugham and Balaji of Panruti is in violation of Section 199(2) and (4)(a) and CrPC Article 21 and 142 of the Constitution of India
[5/11, 14:56] Rubt Mhc Advt: NOw only I am going to have my Lunch Madam. I’ll go down now from my office to dining room
[5/11, 14:57] Rubt Mhc Advt: Madam I will come back at 7 pm I want nap. From morning 10 am I was working. You keep posting Madam I will see it when I wake up. You had your lunch Madam.?
[5/11, 15:37] Sekarreporter: 🙏🏽🌹🌹

You may also like...