Madras High Court Grants Bail To Four Accused Of Obstructing Temple Demolition
story
Recently, while disposing of a bail application preferred by two men including a lawyer who were alleged to have trespassed into a temple property and prevented the revenue officials from removing the illegal encroachments, the Madras High Court noted that the court could not be a silent spectator to the act of bulldozing.Justice G Jayachandran made the remarks on coming to know that...
Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Recently, while disposing of a bail application preferred by two men including a lawyer who were alleged to have trespassed into a temple property and prevented the revenue officials from removing the illegal encroachments, the Madras High Court noted that the court could not be a silent spectator to the act of bulldozing.
Justice G Jayachandran made the remarks on coming to know that the government officials had, in the guise of evicting the encroachers, demolished the age-old structure.
The court was hearing the Bail applications moved by Sankar, a practicing lawyer in Thiruvannamalai along with three others. They were arrested based on a complaint given by the Assistant Commissioner (Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Trusts) of Arulmigu Arunachalaeshwarar Thirukovil, alleging that they prevented the authorities from evicting the illegal encroachments from the buildings owned by the temple.
In the course of hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the act of the Joint Commissioner, HR&CE, with the help of police, in the guise of evicting the encroacher, had demolishing the four hundred years old structure over which the right and title of the temple itself is doubtful. Photographs of the demolished structure shown to the Court to substantiate the claim. However, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor denying the allegation. This Court cannot be a silent spectator of the act of bull dozing the structures of persons whom they dislike when the fact remains the structure is a choultry meant for pilgrims, the court noted.
During the hearing, the petitioners had informed the court that the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment department had demolished a four hundred year old structure at a time when its ownership was still doubtful.
The court then appointed Adv Vrinda Ramesh as an Advocate Commissioner to ascertain the fact of the case after the State submitted that the building collapsed while trying to remove the encroachers. The Advocate Commissioner, after inspecting the place submitted that the version of the State was not believable.
When this fact was brought before Justice AD Jagadish Chandra who later heard the case, the bench was inclined to grant bail to the petitioners. It also refrained from deciding the rival claims of the parties as the same was already pending before other forums.
The court thus ordered the parties to be released on bail on their executing a separate bond for a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) with two sureties each. The court also directed the parties to appear before the Esplanade Police Station every day.
Case Title: Sankar v The State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 115