JUDGMENT (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.81 of 2022 on the file of the respondent.) 1. The Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused on bail pending investigation in Crime No.81 of 2022 on the file of the respondent. 2. The case of the prosecution, as evinced from the complaint lodged by the de facto complainant, Naresh Kumar, in brief, is as under:- The de facto complainant belongs to ‘DMK’, a political party. In his capacity as such, he was watching the election process on 19.2.2022, at about 4.30 pm, by standing near the polling booth at Ward No.49, Kamaraj Matriculation School at Sanjeeviraya Kovil Street and by that time, the Former Minister Mr.D.Jayakumar alongwith 40 persons in 20 two wheelers, had come to the polling station with the AIADMK flag hoisted on his car, who had attempted to trespass into the polling booth. When the de facto complainant had questioned them, the Former Minister Mr.Jayakumar had abused him with filthy language and stating as to how dare he was to question a Former Minister, had instigated his associates to assault the de facto complainant. The persons, who had accompanied him viz., A.T.Arasu, Somu, Chandran and Logu and other had assaulted the de facto complainant and others, who could be identified, had also assaulted him with knifes, iron rods and wooden logs and attempted to murder him. The de facto complainant, in order to save his life, had attempted to run away from the place. At that time, the Former Minister and his associates A.T.Arasu, Somu, Chandran and Logu have caught hold of him, and assaulted him again and thereafter, removing his shirt, had tied his hands from behind and paraded him in a half naked manner like an accused and due to the assault, the de facto complainant had sustained injuries in the spine, left hand and right ring finger and the legs. The de facto complainant had fallen down unconscious and that his friends had saved him and taken him to the hospital. 3. The de facto complainant had fallen down unconscious and that his friends had saved him and taken him to the hospital. 3. Based on the complaint, initially, a case was registered for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 153, 355, 323, 324 and 506(ii) of IPC and 4AA(1a), 4AA(4) of Tamil Nadu Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement Act 1959) and after obtaining further statement, the case was altered into one for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 153, 355, 323, 324, 506(ii) and 307 of IPC and 4AA(1a), 4AA(4) Tamil Nadu Open Places (prevention of Disfigurement Act 1959) and Section 66-E of I.T.Act in Crime No.81 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police. The petitioner was arrested on 21.2.2022 at 8.00 pm and remanded to judicial custody on the same day. 4. The grounds raised in the petition for grant of bail are as under:- (i) For the occurrence alleged to have taken place on 19.2.2022 at about 4.30 pm the petitioner was arrested on 19.2.2022 at 6.00 pm itself, however, the FIR was sent to the learned Magistrate only on 22.2.2022 at about 12.10 am at the time of remand of the petitioner and thereby there a delay in sending the FIR to the court. Further, the offence under Section 307 IPC and section 66(E) of Information Technology Act which were not originally in the FIR was later included which creates much doubt about the case of the prosecution. (ii) The petitioner being a Former Minister and the de facto complainant also being a party member of another party and a habitual offender, who has got more than ten criminal cases filed against him in the previous regime, the complaint is an outcome of mere political rivalry and a motivated one. (iii) On the date of occurrence, the petitioner had received an information about fake/bogus voting by DMK party members and thereupon, he had visited the spot and he, alongwith his party members had prevented the fake/bogus voting and in such course of action, they had to hand over the de facto complainant to the police for having disturbed the election process. Suspecting that the de facto complainant would have kept any weapon concealed, they had removed the shirt of the de facto complainant and caught hold of him with the same to handover him to the police. Suspecting that the de facto complainant would have kept any weapon concealed, they had removed the shirt of the de facto complainant and caught hold of him with the same to handover him to the police. (iv) No injury was caused by the petitioners and his party member to the de facto complainant as evident from the Accident Register which contains the word “Reserved” in the column of nature of injury. (v) The private arrest of the de facto complainant made by the petitioner and others on 19.2.2022 at 4.30 pm had been manipulated and fabricated as though the petitioner had instigated to assault him. (vi) Only to sustain the arrest of the petitioner and to avoid the petitioner coming out on bail, the FIR came to be altered by including offences punishable under Section 307 IPC and Section 66(E) of the Information Technology Act. (vii) During the arrest of the petitioner, the respondent had not been complied with the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in various decisions like Joginder Kumar vs State Of U.P ( (1994) 4 SCC 260 ), D.K.Basu vs. State of West Bengal ( AIR 1997 SC 610 ) and Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar ( (2014) 8 SCC 469 ). 5. Mr.Meganathan, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the Respondent would submit that the investigation is pending. He would further submit that it is a case where the petitioner alongwith his party colleagues had attempted to trespass into a polling booth and when it was questioned by the de facto complainant, the petitioner had instigated his party colleagues and they had indiscriminately assaulted the de facto complainant with knifes, wooden logs and iron rods. He would also submit that the injured victim/de facto complainant had been discharged from the hospital however, if the petitioner is granted bail, there is every possibility that he may tamper with the investigation and therefore, in the event of granting bail, it may be granted subjected to stringent conditions and the petitioner may be directed to give an undertaking that he would not indulge in any such activities in future. 6. At this stage, Mr.Sanjay R.Hegde, Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a Former Minister and a law abiding person and he would not indulge into any such activities. 7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 8. 6. At this stage, Mr.Sanjay R.Hegde, Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a Former Minister and a law abiding person and he would not indulge into any such activities. 7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 8. A perusal of the materials available on record, this court finds that there is a small discrepancy with regard to date of arrest and consequent event of sending the FIR to the court. The petitioner is a Former Minister. He has been in custody for about ten days. On instructions, the learned Government Advocate reports that the injured victim/de facto complainant has been discharged from the hospital and preliminary investigation in the case is completed. The only objection raised by the respondent is a formal one that if the petitioner is granted bail, there is a possibility of him tampering the investigation and that in the event of bail being granted, it may be granted subject to stringent conditions. 9. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, 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 XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai. (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. (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. 10. With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition is ordered.