MEMORANDUM OF CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION(UNDER SECTION 438 OF Cr.P.C)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADRAS AT MADURAI BENCH

(CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)

Crl.O.P (MD) No. of 2014

Uthayakumar, (M/54/2014)S/o. Mr. Paramarthalinga Marthandam,Isankanvillai,Mani Veethi,Parakkai Road, Nagerkoil Junction.Kaniyakumari District. … .. Petitioner

-Vs-The Inspector of Police,Koodankulam Police Station,Koodankulam,Tirunelveli District. … Respondent/Complainant

In crime no. 141/2012PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL

The Petitioner above named humbly submits as follows:

1. It is respectfully submitted that the Petitioner is apprehend-

ing arrest in alleged offence u/s.143, 291 r/w 149 IPC. The

petitioner is under serious apprehension that the petitioner

would be made a scapegoat in a false case.

2. That the Respondent registered First Information Report u/

s.143, 188, 157, 291 r/w.149 IPC vide Crime No.141 of 2012

on 24.03.2012 against 35 persons including the petitioner.

Then, the petitioner was unable to seek anticipatory bail as

the petitioner was unaware that there is a FIR registered

against the petitioner and also those were the bailable of-

fences. Subsequently, the Respondent filed a Charge Sheet

as C.C. No.228 of 2012 on 29.06.2012 in Crime No.

141/2012 before the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Vallioor

against 36 persons including the petitioner, but the earlier

sections were converted into u/s.143, 157, 291 IPC and

Sec.3(b),(c) r/w 7 of Religious Institution (Prevention of mis-

use) Act 1988 in respect of one of the 4th accused. Remain-

ing all accused are charged u/s 143, 291 r/w. 149 IPC, in-

cluding the petitioner. Later, despite the allegations against

the petitioner are bailable, the Learned Judicial Magistrate

issued the non bailable warrant against the petitioner.

3. That the prosecution case is that this present case is regis-

tered based on the complaint of Constable Sudhahar

(No.2577) from Kodankulam Police Station on 24.03.2012.

That the Petitioner and 34 other named accused along with

2,975 persons had conspired together and illegally assem-

bled in front of the St. Lurdhu Matha Chruch, Idinthakarai

and sat in a hunger strike to commit riot against nuclear

power plant while a prohibitory order under section 144 of

Cr.P.C was promulgation. They shouted slogans and

planned to restrain the employees from entering into the

power plant and planned to call for other villagers and fish-

ermen to join with their demonstration.

4. That the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is a law

abiding citizen of this Country and he never had any inten-

tion to disturb the public tranquility by making instigation.

Even as per the case of the prosecution, there was a hunger

strike and they called other people to join in their demon-

stration. The same is not an offence but they had utilized

the right given to them by the constitution of India. But, the

prosecution had a malicious intention to foist a false case,

thus the prosecution had slammed with offences from the

IPC. But, as those were the bailable offences, the Respon-

dent wanted to give a stringent treatment by attracting sec-

tions from Religious Institution (Prevention of misuse) Act,

1988. So it shows that the allegation of the Defacto Com-

plainant is not sustainable in the eye of law.

5. It is submitted that in 2011, 2012 and 2013 there were

various kind of demonstrations conducted by the people by

following the nonviolent method. There is no untoward

incident registered. But all the agitations happened

demanding the closure of the atomic reactor in

Koodankulam. It all related to the peaceful demonstration

and the struggle. By considering the same, this Hon’ble

Court by its judgment dated 18/10/2012 and

_________granted bails to the many protesters. By

considering this Hon’ble Court granted the bail to the

protestors by its order dated --------- saying this all incidents

are part of the protest.

6. It is also important that when the Koodankulam Nuclear

Plant issues were challenged before the Hon’ble Suprme

Court vide Civil Appeal NO. 4440 OF 2013, passed in G.

Sundarrajan Versus Union of India and others, the Hon’ble

Suprme Court gave various directions vide its judgment

dated 6th May, 2013.

One of the directions No. 14 is saying as follows:-

“14. Endeavour should be made to withdraw all the criminal cases filed against the agitators so that peace and normalcy be restored at Kudankulam and nearby places and steps should be taken to educate the people of the necessity of the plant which is in the largest interest of the nation particularly the State of Tamil Nadu”.

Subsequently, in view of the direction of the apex court, one public interest litigation was filed before this Hon’ble Court vide W.P. No. 15829 of 2013 and this Hon’ble court also insisted the Respondent police to follow the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. But, the Respondent police is not following the direction given the Hon’ble Supreme Court and also disobeying the said directions by going ahead with cases by filing charge sheets. Including the petitioner and other people are facing around 220 cases without any iota of truth in the complaint, only because of the reason that the petitioner and other people were trying to intimate the government that the nuclear reactor will not be wanted to them in a peaceful manner. In the present case also, the Respondent is duty bound to inform the Learned Judicial Magistrate regarding the direction as above mentioned by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Hon’ble High Court. If the Respondent had mentioned to the Learned Magistrate, the Learned Judicial Magistrate should not have issued a non bailbale warrant against the petitioner.

4) It is submitted that the petitioner has no blemish on

her carrier record and has no record of involvement in any criminal activity. Thus, there is no reason to attempt to involve in the offence as alleged by the Respondent, without any reason and benefit as alleged by the prosecution. The petitioner has no connection with the alleged offence.

5) The petitioner is deeply rooted in the society with his family and siblings. Therefore, fleeing from justice, evading

from enquiry and tempering witnesses would be not applicable in this instant case in respect of the petitioner.6) That in the event of order of anticipatory Bail, the Petitioner shall furnish substantial sureties and shall abide by all the conditions of the Hon’ble Court. For the sack of argument, even if considered the prosecution version as true, it is clear that the petitioner is unable to disturb the witnesses.

Therefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to enlarge the Petitioner on Bail in the event of arrest in Crime No. 141/2012 to the satisfaction of the Ld. Judicial Magistrate, Vallioor on the file of the Respondent police and thus render justice.

Dated at Madurai this is the __th day of March, 2014

Counsel for the Petitioner/Accused

Note:-

1. Bail to the satisfaction of the Ld. Judicial Magistrate, Vallioor.2. This is the first Bail application before this Hon’ble court.

DISTRICT : TIRUNELVELI

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADRAS AT MADURAI

BENCH

Crl.O.P. No. of 2014

PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL

Rajiv Rufus (Enl. No. 99/2003)N. Sobanabai(Enl.No.805/2007)

COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER

MEMORANDUM OF CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION(UNDER SECTION 438 OF Cr.P.C)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADRAS AT MADURAI BENCH

(CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)

Crl.O.P (MD) No of 2014

Uthayakumar, (M/54/2014)S/o. Mr. Paramarthalinga Marthandam,Isankanvillai,Mani Veethi,Parakkai Road, Nagerkoil Junction.Kaniyakumari District. … .. Petitioner

-Vs-The Inspector of Police,

Koodankulam Police Station,Koodankulam,Tirunelveli District. … Respondent/Complainant

INDEX TO TYPED SET OF PAPERS

Sl. No. Date Description Page No.1.

2.

3.

Verified that the documents above mentioned are the true copies of their originals.

Dated at Madurai on ___th day of March 2014.

Counsel for the Petitioner

THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADRAS AT MADURAI

BENCH

Crl.O.P. No. of 2014

TYPED SET

Rajiv Rufus (Enl. No. 99/2003)N. Sobanabai(Enl.No.805/2007)

COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER