Sali Babu and Others vs State by Deputy Superintendent of Police, C.B.I.

Shivappa, J.—The petitioners are seeking for grant of bail. They are arrayed as accused persons for offences punishable Under Sections

143,147,148,149,323,326,307 and 120-B of I.P.C. On the oral complaint of Sri J.M. Kalyanam , father of Sri K.M. Vijayan, a complaint was

registered on 21.7.1994 by R.2 Kodambakkam Police Station, Madras. The investigation of the case was handed over to C.B.C.I.D. of Tamil

Nadu State on 7.8.1994 as per Government orders. From 8.8.1994 to 18.8.1994, the case was investigated by C.B.C.I.D., Madras. On

18.8.1994, the Supreme Court ordered that C.B.I. to take up investigation from the Tamil Nadu Police and the C.B.I took up the investigation on

8.9.1994. The C.B.I. examined several persons by name Gurumurthy, Jagadish and Pasupathy and verified the source of information and collected

materials that prior to assault on Sri K.M. Vijayan, a conspiracy had been there to organise such assault. It is the case of the prosecution that at the

instance of one Adhi Rajaram, the execution of the assault was entrusted to Madhavan, Kannan and Paramasivan by the said Adhi Rajaram and he

paid an advance of Rs. 10,000/- to Paramasivam to collect persons to execute the work. Accordingly, Paramasivam brought the petitioners herein

and accommodated them in Pandian Lodge, where room was maintained in the name of Adhi Rajaram and another room was taken on the night of

20th July, 1994. Early hours of the day, all of them went near the house of the advocate Vijayan in two auto-rickshaws and on a bicycle armed

with casuarina sticks and waited upto 4.30 hours near the house of Sri Vijayan, on the basis of the information received about the departure of Sri

Vijayan by morning flight to Delhi to attend a case before the Supreme Court. When Sri Vijayan took his car from the porch at 4:30 p.m., parked

it on the main road and got down to close the gate, the petitioners attacked him using casuarina sticks, inflicted severe blows resulting in the

fracture of arms and leg. The C.B.I. seized the material objects, drawn up several mahazars, examined several persons, who speak to the several

aspects of the case. There are confessional statements, recoveries, entries in the Pandian Lodge for having booked the rooms - all these speak to

the complicity of the crime. After inflicting the fatal injuries and on seeing some neighbours are coming for the rescue of Sri Vijayan on hearing his

cries, they ran after leaving sticks and shawl in the scene and while running from the scene two persons got some injuries on their limbs by falling on

the road. From the point of conspiracy, assembly, purchasing casuarina sticks, hiring the auto-rickshaws, taking a bicycle, assembling near the

house of Sri Vijayan, executing the assault, thereafter fleeing from the scene - for all these links the prosecution has collected the materials by

seizure of the material objects, documents, examining witnesses, etc. These materials prima facie show the involvement of the petitioners in the

alleged assault.

The petitioners have contended that they are falsely implicated and they are innocent of the offence and they have also alleged that they are the

members and office bearers of a prominent political party, which does not veil the goodwill of the Central Government and that they have roots in

the society and there is no question of fleeing from justice and also submitted that they will undertake not to hamper the course of investigation or

tamper with the witnesses.

The prosecution has alleged that one of the petitioners Kannan is an accused in Crime No. 442 of 1992 for offender Under Sections 399, 120-

B read with 34, 395 read with 109 I.P.C. along with Adhi Rajaram. It is also stated that the sixth petitioner and Adhi Rajaram are involved in

criminal activities from 1992 onwards. Having regard to the fact that these petitioners have succumbed, shared, intended to carry out the design to

assault Sri Vijayan, shows they have acted for gain due to influence.

In the counter, it has been stated that petitioners 1,3 and 6 under the pretext of real-estate business they are working as agents on commission

basis for evicting people from their residence/accommodation by force for others. It is also submitted that one Sri Sambandha Mudaliar purchased

a land along with building at T.P. Chatram and since the occupants of the building did not vacate, he hired petitioners 3 and 6 and one Nanda for

evicting the occupants of the building; but the occupants of the building filed a case against Sambhanda Mudaliar and petitioners 3 and 6 and this

case is still pending in the Court. It is also submitted that petitioner No. 6 was involved in a case of assaulting a Sub-Inspector of Police, Saidapet

Police station in the year 1993. Regarding petitioner No. 4, he is a drug-addict and he will be ready to do any criminal offence for the sake of

drug. So far as petitioner No. 5, he is a lieutenant to Sri Adhi Rajaram, who is alleged to be the conspirator in the case and remaining petitioners

viz. 2,7 and 8 are in the habit of indulging in assault on commission basis and alleged that all these are being done with the help and connivance of

the local police and no records about the hooligans are available at present. In the back drop of these averments, pendency of a criminal case

against Adhi Rajaram and petitioner No. 6 herein, and in view of the circumstance that non-accused were made to surrender before the Court at

the instance of the police - if these persons are released, there is every possibility to create a hostile atmosphere to the respondent during

investigation. When the respondent is investigating a serious crime, which contemplates maximum punishment and have certain material which give

raise to believe that there is a prima facie case, that itself is sufficient justification, coupled with bad antecedents of the petitioners to reject bail.

Law must secure social security - now releasing the petitioner, they may scare the witnesses and even flee from justice. C.B.I. has to depend upon

the State police for vigil and having regard to the circumstances and allegations made against local police, to secure their presence may result in

undue delay in investigation and trial. Freedom of profession guaranteed for the sake of public and for advancement of justice and it should remain

unassaulted. If assaulted, it is an attempt to shake the social security. In a conflict between social security and individual liberty, court need not

sacrifice security of the society at the alter of individual liberty. It is a dare attack in public on a professional man. If by release, if investigation is

prevented from collecting the material at the instance of the petitioners, it would be to favour the accused and discourage the process of law to

bring the criminals to book. The dare-devil attack on a professional man in public at the early hours of the day shows that in the event of release,

they may scare the witnesses. In order to secure the interests of the society at large, and to repress crime a stringent view on wrong doers, with

bad antecedents, is a social necessity. Therefore, I see no justification to grant them bail and the petition is dismissed.