{"id":133150,"date":"2003-03-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-03-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-r-gopal-nakkheeran-gopal-vs-state-on-5-march-2003"},"modified":"2017-01-28T02:48:39","modified_gmt":"2017-01-27T21:18:39","slug":"r-r-gopal-nakkheeran-gopal-vs-state-on-5-march-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-r-gopal-nakkheeran-gopal-vs-state-on-5-march-2003","title":{"rendered":"R.R.Gopal @ Nakkheeran Gopal vs State on 5 March, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
R.R.Gopal @ Nakkheeran Gopal vs State on 5 March, 2003<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 05\/03\/2003\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.NAGAPPAN\n\nCRL.O.P.NO.4254 OF 2003 AND CRL.O.P.NO.4255 OF 2003\n\nR.R.Gopal @ Nakkheeran Gopal           ... Petitioner in both\n                                        the petitions\n\n-Vs-\n\nState, represented by\nInspector of Police,\nAnthiyur Police Station\nin Crime No.676\/1998,\nErode District. (Now\ntransferred to CBCID)                   ... Respondent in<\/pre>\n
                                        Crl.O.P.4254\/2003<\/p>\n
State,represented by
\nInspector of Police,
\nCrime No.1500\/1998 of
\nB-1 Police Station,
\nCoimbatore. (Now
\ntransferred to CBCID)                   … Respondent in
\n                                        Crl.OP.4255\/2003<\/p>\n
                Petitions under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code praying
\nfor orders as stated therein.<\/p>\n
\n\n!For Petitioner ...  Mr.K.Subramanian,\nin both the             Senior Counsel for\npetitions               Mr.P.T.Perumal\n\n^For Respondents ..  Mr.N.R.Chandran,\n                        Advocate General and\n                        Mr.I.Subramanian,\n                        Public Prosecutor.\n\n:COMMON ORDER\n\n<\/pre>\n
                In Crl.O.P.No.4254 of 2003,  the  petitioner  has  sought  for
\nanticipatory  bail, in the event of his arrest, in the case in Crime No.676 of
\n1998 on the file of  Inspector  of  Police,  Anthiyur  Police  Station,  Erode
\nDistrict.\n<\/p>\n
                2.   The same petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.4255 of 2003 has sought
\nfor anticipatory bail, in the event of  his  arrest,  in  the  case  in  Crime
\nNo.1500 of 1998 of B-1 Police Station, Coimbatore.\n<\/p>\n
                3.   Since the petitioner in both the petitions is one and the
\nsame and the averments in both the petitions  are  similar,  they  were  heard
\ntogether and a common order is passed.\n<\/p>\n
                4.   The averments in both the petitions are summarised below.
\nThe prosecution case in Crime  No.676  of  1998  is  that  on  23.11.1998  one
\nSaravanan,  son  of  Kandhavelu,  gave  a  report  stating that his father was
\nmissing and a case was registered as ‘man missing’ and  later,  based  on  the
\nstatement  of one Muthukrishnan on 23.4.1999, the case was altered to Sections
\n147, 148, 302 and 201, I.P.C.  read with Section 25 (1) (a) of  Arms  Act  and
\nafter  investigation,  final  report was filed on 0 1.6.2000 against Veerappan
\nand nine others.  The case was split up as against the absconding accused  and
\nthe  case  was  committed  to  Sessions  Court as against the accused who were
\narrested and released on bail and it was taken on file in S.C.No.160  of  2000
\nand  is  pending  trial  before  Additional  Sessions  Judge (Fast Track Court
\nNo.II), Gobichettipalayam.  The Investigating  Officer  filed  an  application
\nunder Section  173 (8) Cr.P.C.  on 20.11.2001 for further investigation and it
\nwas allowed on the  same  date.    Sivasubramaniam,  Salem  Area  Reporter  of
\nNakkheeran  Magazine, was implicated as additional accused in this case and he
\nwas released on bail  on  23.5.2002.    The  petitioner  apprehends  that  the
\nrespondent is taking all effort to implicate and arrest the petitioner in this
\ncase.\n<\/p>\n
                The  prosecution  case in Crime No.1500 of 1998 is that on the
\ncomplaint of one Rathinam, a case was registered  as  ‘man  missing’  on  19.1
\n1.1998  in  B-1  Police  Station,  Coimbatore  and after investigation, it was
\nclosed  as  undetectable  and  the  final  report  was  accepted  by  Judicial
\nMagistrate No.V,   Coimbatore   on   09.1.2001   in  R.C.S.4  of  2001.    The
\nInvestigating Officer filed an application under section 173  (8)  Cr.    P.C.
\nfor  further  investigation  on  05.11.2001 and it was allowed by the Judicial
\nMagistrate on 03.12.2001 and the reporters of the petitioner  were  implicated
\nby altering  the  case  under  Sections  147,  148, 364, 302 I.P.C.  read with
\nSection 25 (1-b) of Arms Act.  The petitioner apprehends that  the  respondent
\nis taking all efforts to implicate and arrest the petitioner in the case.\n<\/p>\n
                The  petitioner is the Editor and Publisher of Tamil Political
\nBi-weekly Nakkheeran Magazine and he started the magazine as a Weekly  in  the
\nyear  1988  and they give News impartially to the Public and the Magazine is a
\nlargest circulated political magazine in Tamil Nadu.    For  many  years,  one
\nVeerappan,  known as Sandalwood smuggler Veerappan has been committing various
\nforest  offences  like  smuggling  of  sandalwood,  poaching  and  killing  of
\nelephants for tusks in the dense forest area of Erode and Coimbatore Districts
\nand  the adjoining forest area of Karnataka State and the State Governments of
\nTamil Nadu and Karnataka were trying to apprehend Veerappan and they  are  not
\nable to  nab  him.    During the year 1993, the petitioner sent his Salem Area
\nReporter Sivasubramaniam to the Forest Area and he was able to meet  Veerappan
\nand the  same  was  published in Nakkheeran Magazine.  In the year 1995 , when
\nthe  Nakkheeran  Reporters  were  inside  the  jungle,  the   petitioner   got
\ninformation  that  police were given orders to shoot them and hence complaints
\nwere sent to Press Council of India  on  15.11.1995  and  21.11.1995  and  the
\nChairman of Press Council of India Mr.Justice P.B.Savant wrote a letter to the
\nthen Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu to intervene personally in the matter in the
\ninterest of free press and provide security to the staff of the Newspaper.\n<\/p>\n
        The petitioner went into the forest and met Veerappan in May 1 996 and
\ntook an  interview  with  him.    Around  13.7.1997,  Veerappan kidnapped nine
\nKarnataka forest officials and both the State Governments of  Tamil  Nadu  and
\nKarnataka requested the petitioner to play the role of Emissary and secure the
\nrelease  of  abducted  persons  and  they  issued authorisation letters to the
\npetitioner and his reporters to that effect.    The  petitioner  accepted  the
\nassignment  and  persuaded Veerappan to release the forest officials and after
\nrepeated efforts, the forest  officials  were  released  and  both  the  State
\nGovernments have given appreciation letters to the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
                In  1999,  due  to  the  harassment caused to the reporters of
\nNakkheeran by the Special Task Force of both the States, a complaint was given
\nto the Press Council of India and after enquiry, it advised the police not  to
\ntorture Nakkheeran   reporters.      Investigative   Journalism  practised  by
\nNakkheeran Magazine was not appreciated and the  annoyed  persons  caused  the
\nState  machinery  to  file  about 100 cases throughout the State of Tamil Nadu
\nagainst the petitioner and the petitioner filed Writ Petition Nos.925 of  1993
\nand 926  of  1993  before this Court and the former petition is pending.  Only
\nthree of those cases were charge sheeted and two of them  ended  in  acquittal
\nand the  other  case was not pursued by the Government.  Due to the persuasion
\nof the petitioner, one of the close associates of Veerappan, namely,  Siddhan,
\nsurrendered before the City Commissioner of Police, Chennai on 24.4.1998.\n<\/p>\n
                Mr.Rajkumar,  the  popular  film  actor of Karnataka and three
\nothers were abducted by Veerappan on 30.7.2000  and  on  31.7.2000,  both  the
\nChief  Ministers  of  Tamil  Nadu  and  Karnataka  met and decided to send the
\npetitioner as State Emissary and the petitioner was forced to accept the same.
\nBoth the State Governments issued authorisation letters to the petitioner  and
\nhis  reporters  and  five  trips were made by them into the jungle and all the
\nhostages were released after 108 days.   Some  of  the  police  officials  and
\npolitical  leaders were very critical about the role of emissary played by the
\npetitioner.  After the change of government, the petitioner and his  team  are
\nin trouble.\n<\/p>\n
                Sivasubramaniam,   the   Salem  Area  Reporter  of  Nakkheeran
\nMagazine, was implicated in series of cases and was arrested.  In the guise of
\nfurther investigation, petitions under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C  were  filed  in
\nevery  Veerappan related cases which were pending for years together only with
\nthe motive of roping in the petitioner and his  reporters  as  accused.    The
\npetitioner  filed  Writ Petition No.1679 of 2002 before this Court to restrain
\nthe police from arresting the petitioner and his reporters and it is pending.\n<\/p>\n
                Apprehending arrest in Rajkumar abduction case in Crime  No.90
\nof  2000,  the  petitioner  filed  petition  for  anticipatory  bail in Crl.O.
\nP.No.24771 of 2001 before this Court and it was contended by  the  prosecution
\nthat the  petitioner  was  not  an  accused  in the case.  However, this Court
\npassed an order stating that the petitioner be released on bail in  the  event
\nof being  made  an accused, as the apprehension of arrest was reasonable.  The
\npetitioner was included as an accused in that case after six months and he was
\nsummoned for interrogation before the Thalavady Police.   Apprehending  danger
\nto  the  life,  the  petitioner  filed  Crl.M.P.No.4828  of  2002 in the above
\noriginal petition for modification of the condition and  this  Court  modified
\nthe  same  and directed the petitioner to appear before the CBCID Special Wing
\nat Gobichettipalayam for interrogation for 10  days  and  this  Court  further
\ndirected  the  Additional  Director  General  of Police, CBCID, to monitor the
\nwhole interrogation in order to ensure that no untoward incident takes  place.
\nThe petitioner  was interrogated from 20.6.2002 to 29.6.2002 for 10 days.  The
\npetitioner filed Writ PetitionNo.21864 of 2002 and W.P.No.21984 of 2002 before
\nthis Court in this regard and they are pending.  During the  interrogation  in
\nRajkumar  Abduction  case,  probing  questions  were  put to him in respect of
\nVeerappan related cases, particularly,  Kandhavel  and  Bakthavatsalam  murder
\ncases,  which  are the subject matter of these petitions and the interrogation
\nwas videographed on all the days.\n<\/p>\n
                The  petitioner  filed   Crl.M.P.No.1594   of   2002   seeking
\nanticipatory  bail  in  the case in Crime No.1500 of 1998 before the Principal
\nSessions Judge, Coimbatore and the learned Judge  dismissed  the  same  on  26
\n.7.2002 on the ground that writ petitions seeking similar reliefs were already
\npending on  the  file of this Court.  From 27.12.2002 onwards, CBCID policemen
\nhave been surveilling the office and residence  of  the  petitioner  and  they
\ncause mental  torture  to  the  petitioner’s  staff  and  family members.  The
\npetitioner filed W.P.(Crl.) No.2 of 2003 before the Supreme Court praying  for
\na  writ  of  prohibition  restraining  the  respondent  police  officials from
\nmisusing their statutory  powers  in  the  investigation  of  both  the  cases
\npertaining to  these petitions.  The Apex Court dismissed the petition stating
\nthat the order of dismissal will not  preclude  the  petitioner  from  seeking
\nappropriate relief from the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
                The police officials are biased, inimical and avenging towards
\nthe  petitioner  and  the  petitioner  has  categorised  the facts to show the
\nsinister plan of the police and the petitioner is also submitting the relevant
\ndocuments.  The petitioner is apprehending arrest by the  respondent  in  both
\nthe  cases  and  fears  ill-treatment and hence seeks for anticipatory bail in
\nboth the cases.\n<\/p>\n
                5.  The CBCID Inspectors of Anthiyur  Circle,  Erode  District
\nand Coimbatore District have filed their respective counter statements in both
\nthe petitions  and  the  contents are similar and they are as follows.  In the
\ncase in Crime No.676 of 1998,  final  report  was  filed  on  4.6.2000  before
\nJudicial  Magistrate,  Bhavani against Veerappan and 9 others for the offences
\nunder Sections 147, 148, 364, 302 and 201, I.P.C besides Section 25 (1) (a) of
\nArms Act and the case was committed in  PRC.No.30  of  2000  on  21.9.2001  in
\nrespect  of  Accused  Nos.5,  6  and  8  alone  and the case was split up with
\nreference to absconding accused.  In S.C.No.160 of 2001, Accused Nos.5, 6  and
\n8  are  facing  trial before the Additional Sessions (Fast Track Court No.II),
\nGobichettipalayam.   Fresh   materials   had   surfaced   warranting   further
\ninvestigation  and  in  that context, application under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C
\nwas filed before the Judicial  Magistrate,  Bhavani  in  P.R.C.No.26  of  2001
\n(Split up case) and the same was allowed on 20.11.2001.\n<\/p>\n
                The case in Crime No.1500 of 1998 was originally registered as
\n‘ man  missing’  and  referred as undetectable on 27.12.2000.  Fresh materials
\nhad surfaced warranting further investigation and in that context, application
\nunder Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C.  was  filed  before  Judicial  Magistrate  No.V,
\nCoimbatore and it was allowed on 3.12.2001.\n<\/p>\n
                During  further  investigation in both the cases, it was found
\nthat cadres of certain Tamil extremist groups, such  as  the  TNLA  and  TNRT,
\nwhich  are banned organisations, had clandestinely entered into Sathiamangalam
\nforest  and  joined  the  forest  brigand  Veerappan   and   his   associates.
\nInvestigation  further  reveals  that  the  cadres of the extremist groups are
\nacting in concert motivated by secessionist ideas  which  has  the  object  of
\nliberation of  Tamil  Nadu  from  India.    The  petitioner  and his associate
\nSivasubramaniam appear to have taken a vital role in facilitating the  members
\nof the two extremist groups in joining hands with Veerappan.\n<\/p>\n
                In the case in Crime No.676 of 1998, one Kandhavelu a resident
\nof  a small hamlet near Andhiyur in Erode District was abducted and taken into
\nThalavady Forest by Veerappan and his associates and  in  the  case  in  Crime
\nNo.1500  of 1998, one Bakthavatchalam of Coimbatore was abducted on 29.10.1998
\nand was taken to Thalavady Forest by Veerappan  and  his  Associates  and  the
\nreports  appeared  in  the  Tamil  Magazine  Nakkheeran  in  its issues, dates
\n24.11.1998, 27.11.1998 and 4.12.1998 under the  caption  “Trial  in  Veerappan
\nCourt  and death sentence to police informants” contain a thumb nail sketch of
\nthe gruesome manner in which the aforesaid Kandhavelu and Bakthavatchalam, who
\nwere police informants, were murdered and the dead  bodies  were  subsequently
\nscreened from  discovery.    There  were  also photographs showing the various
\nstages and the dead bodies.  The cover article  published  indicate  that  the
\nkidnapping  and  murder  were  orchestered  and  pre-planned  with  meticulous
\nprecision.\n<\/p>\n
                When the abovesaid  Nakkheeran  magazine  issues  came  to  be
\npublished  and made available to the public, it was believed that the articles
\nwere a product of investigative  journalism  as  claimed  by  the  petitioner.
\nHowever,  it  has  since come to light that the petitioner and Sivasubramaniam
\nhad  an  active  role  in  the  kidnapping  and  murder  of   Kandhavelu   and
\nBakthavatchalam  in  the  Thalavady  Forest and the publication of the article
\nwith photographs is with the  oblique  motive  to  deter  others  from  giving
\ninformation  to  the  police,  in  that  they  would meet with a similar fate.
\nFurther investigation discloses that the petitioner had been to the  Thalavady
\nForest  some  time  before the incident and he appears to have been a privy to
\nthe abduction and murder of both the persons.  Materials gathered prima  facie
\ndisclose that Veerappan had entertained a doubt as to whether both the persons
\nwere  police informants and the petitioner herein clarified the matter through
\nhis reporter Sivasubramaniam that both of them were police informants and they
\nshould be eliminated and only after that Veerappan lured both the persons into
\nforest and brutally murdered them.  The petitioner is the Editor, Printer  and
\nPublisher  of  the  Magazine where photographs of the occurrences had appeared
\nand Sivasubramaniam  happens  to  be  his  reporter.    In  the   context   of
\nSecessionist  activities  are being pursued by Veerappan and his gang with the
\nhelp of Secessionist groups like TNLA and TNRT and the investigation is  still
\ncontinuing and  is  at  a  crucial  stage.  There is prima facie indication of
\nactive role being played by the petitioner and hence this Court may not  grant
\ndiscretionary relief  of  anticipatory  bail to the petitioner.  Moreover, all
\nthe incriminating materials relating  to  the  gruesome  murder  of  both  the
\npersons  are  either  in possession or control of the petitioner and custodial
\ninterrogation is absolutely essential and if he is released on bail, the whole
\nprocess of  investigation  would  be  stifled  and  there  is  possibility  of
\nabscondance and also tampering with the evidence.\n<\/p>\n
                6.   The  petitioner  has  filed  reply affidavits in both the
\npetitions containing  similar  averments  and  they  are  summarised.      The
\nrespondents  in their counters have claimed that fresh materials have surfaced
\nwithout disclosing at what point of time they had surfaced.  The claim made by
\nthe respondents that further  investigation  discloses  that  Tamil  Extremist
\nGroups  had  clandestinely  entered  into  Sathyamangalam  Forest  and  joined
\nVeerappan is not correct.  The further investigation  was  commenced  only  on
\n20.11.2001 and 3.12.2001, whereas wayback in 1998 , the petitioner as a result
\nof  journalistic  investigation  came  to  know  about  the  infiltration  and
\npublished the report on this aspect in Nakkheeran Magazine,  dated  29.12.1998
\nand  the  petitioner  has  also  issued  press  statements  published in Tamil
\nNewspapers, dated 12.9.2000.   The  petitioner  has  clearly  established  his
\nconcern  and  anxiety  about the need for taking a serious view of this matter
\nand it is the petitioner who first disclosed this news  to  the  world.    The
\njudgment  of  Supreme  Court  was  delivered  on  07.11.2000  and  the further
\ninvestigation was ordered on 20.11.2001 and 03.12.2001.  Therefore, the  claim
\nthat on further investigation the above information was found out is false and
\nincorrect.   The  petitioner  has  published  the  article and the photographs
\nrelating to the murder of both the deceased,  as  a  result  of  investigative
\njournalism.\n<\/p>\n
                        The allegation that the petitioner and Sivasubramaniam
\nhad active  role in those murders is an afterthought and concocted story.  The
\nfurther allegation that the petitioner had been to Thalavady Forest some  time
\nprior  to  murders  and  the  petitioner  appear  to  have been a privy to the
\nabduction and murder are all false.  In the year 1997, the petitioner was sent
\nto rescue 11 forest officials pursuant to the request made by both  the  State
\nGovernments  as  a  Government Emissary and that is actually one year prior to
\nthe alleged murders.  The further allegation that the petitioner  conveyed  to
\nVeerappan  that  both  the  deceased  were  police  informants  is figments of
\nimagination and without any basis.    The  petitioner  has  disclosed  in  his
\narticles  that  Veerappan  is  a  hardened criminal and innocent tribal people
\nbecame his victims.\n<\/p>\n
                The contention that the further investigation is  is  progress
\nand is in crucial stage is a routine statement.  After 15 months and 12 months
\nfrom  the  date  of  order  of  further  investigation  in both the cases, the
\nrespondents still claim that the investigation is still in crucial stage.  The
\ncustodial interrogation of the petitioner at this stage is not necessary.  The
\nallegation that there is possibility of absconding of  the  accused  and  also
\ntampering with  the evidence in the cases is false.  The averment that all the
\nincriminating materials relating to the murder  cases  are  in  possession  or
\ncontrol of  the petitioner is a false statement and motivated.  As soon as the
\noffice of the petitioner received the audio cassette, letter  and  film  roll,
\neven  before publication of the matter in the magazine, Mr.Kalimuthu, the then
\nChief of Tamil Nadu Special  Task  Force,  were  interviewed  by  placing  the
\nmaterials before him.  Subsequently, all the materials were handed over.  With
\nreference to the present cases also the petitioner was interrogated during the
\ninterrogation from  20.6.2002  to  29.6.2002.   Custodial interrogation of the
\npetitioner may not be given in the cases because of the past  conduct  of  the
\npolice officials in torturing Sivasubramaniam, one of the accused in the case,
\nwho has  already explained the same in his affidavit.  There is consistent and
\ndeliberate attempt to falsely implicate the petitioner in the  cases  and  the
\ninvestigation  is  motivated  and  the  request for custodial interrogation is
\nlacking bonafides.  The petitioner has already expressed  the  danger  to  his
\nlife  at  the hands of police and this Court has prima facie accepted the plea
\nin Crl.O.P.No.24771 of 2001  and  modified  the  condition.    This  Court  in
\nCr.R.P.No.902  of  2002 directed the respondents to complete the interrogation
\nof Sivasubramaniam in the Court room of Judicial Magistrate.  The  respondents
\nhave arrested Krishnakumar @ Maharan in Crime No.1500 of 1998 and he has filed
\nan affidavit in the writ petition filed by the petitioner in the Supreme Court
\nin W.P.(Crl.)No.2  of 20 03 about the custodial violence inflicted on him.  If
\nthe custodial interrogation of the petitioner is  given  to  the  respondents,
\nthey  will  not  only  torture  him  but  also  eliminate  him in the guise of
\nencounter.   Merely  because  anticipatory  bail  is  granted,  the  right  of
\ninvestigation is not curtailed and conditions may be imposed.\n<\/p>\n
                7.   The  point for consideration is whether the petitioner is
\nentitled for anticipatory bail in the cases.\n<\/p>\n
                8.  The respondents in their counter  affidavits  have  stated
\nthat  further investigation discloses that the petitioner herein had an active
\nrole in the kidnapping and murder of Kandhavelu  and  Bakthavatchalam  in  the
\nThalavady  Forest  and the incriminating materials are either in possession or
\ncontrol of the petitioner and hence custodial interrogation of the  petitioner<\/p>\n
is necessary  in  both  the  cases.    From  the  above  it  is clear that the
\npetitioner is alleged to be an accused in both the cases and the investigation
\nis now done by CBCID Police.\n<\/p>\n
                9.  Mr.K.Subramanian, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
\npetitioner, contended that the material on record discloses  that  right  from
\nthe  year  1996  there  was  friction between Tamil Nadu Police and petitioner
\nmagazine and the  respondents  are  fabricating  false  evidence  against  the
\npetitioner by torturing persons and the further investigation is motivated and
\nnot  bonafide  and  the accusation stems from ulterior motive, object being to
\ninjure and humiliate the petitioner by  having  him  arrested  and  hence  the
\npetitioner should be granted anticipatory bail in both the cases.\n<\/p>\n
                10.   The  learned  Advocate  General  and  the learned Public
\nProsecutor appearing for the respondents  contended  that  the  allegation  of
\nmalafide  is  without any basis and both the cases are in the stage of further
\ninvestigation and as such malafide cannot be attributed and  the  apprehension
\nof the petitioner that he will be subjected to torture in the interrogation is
\nbaseless and the petitioner is not entitled for a pre-arrest bail order in the
\ncases.\n<\/p>\n
                11.   The  learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner
\ncontended that no enmity is alleged between the petitioner  and  the  deceased
\npersons  and  there is no allegation that the petitioner had intention to kill
\nthe deceased persons and it is  also  not  alleged  that  the  petitioner  was
\npresent  in  the  scene  of occurrence and no overt act is alleged against the
\npetitioner insofar as the occurrence is concerned.  It  is  further  contended
\nthat  though  the respondents assert that the petitioner played an active role
\nin the kidnapping and murder of the deceased persons, there  are  no  positive
\nmaterials  to  substantiate  the  same  and  the credibility of the statements
\nalleged to have been obtained from witnesses have  to  be  tested  during  the
\ntrial.\n<\/p>\n
                12.   The learned senior counsel further contended that in the
\ncase in Crime No.676 of 1998, after investigation, the final report was  filed
\nand the case of the absconding accused was split up and the case in S.C.No.160
\nof   2000   is   pending   trial   before   the   Additional  Sessions  Court,
\nGobichettipalayam and at that time, petition for further  investigation  under
\nSection 173(8)  Cr.P.C.    was  filed and it was allowed on 20.11.2001 and the
\ncase in Crime No.1500 of 1998 was closed as undetectable and petition  seeking
\nfor further  investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.  was filed and allowed
\non 3.12.2001 and only after the present Government assumed office in the  year
\n2001,  the  above petitions came to be filed with ulterior motive to humiliate
\nthe petitioner and his staff.  He further contended that besides  the  present
\ntwo  cases, the petitioner has been implicated in Crime No.90 of 2000 relating
\nto Rajkumar abduction and in that case  further  investigation  under  Section
\n173(8) Cr.P.C.    was  ordered on 4.7.2001 and the petitioner moved this Court
\nseeking anticipatory bail in Crl.O.P.No.24771 of 2001 and this Court by order,
\ndated 10.12.2001, granted pre-arrest bail on the basis that  the  petitioner’s
\napprehension  of arrest was reasonable and he is entitled for protection under
\nSection 438 Cr.P.C.  and later the condition  also  came  to  be  modified  in
\nCrl.M.P.No.4828 of 2002.\n<\/p>\n
                13.   According  to  the  petitioner,  he  is an investigative
\njournalist and he is the Editor and Publisher of political weekly  Magazine  ‘
\nNakkheeran’ and has contributed much to the cause of public and on two earlier
\noccasions  he accepted the requests of Governments of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka
\nand acted as State Emissary risking his life and he has also caused  surrender
\nof  one  associate  of  Veerappan,  a hardcore criminal, before the respondent
\npolice.\n<\/p>\n
                14.  In the petitions, the petitioner has stated  that  around
\n13.7.19  97,  forest  brigand  Veerappan  kidnapped  nine  forest officials of
\nKarnataka into the forest and both Governments issued authorisation letters to
\nthe petitioner and his reporters to establish contact with  Veerappan,  in  an
\neffort  to  release the hostages and the petitioner and his reporters ventured
\ninto jungle and on repeated efforts, they succeeded in releasing the  hostages
\nand  both  the  State  Governments  have  given  appreciation  letters  to the
\npetitioner for his social contribution.  Xerox copies of authorisation letters
\nand appreciation letters issued by both the State Governments are found in the
\ntyped set filed along with the petitions.  The petitioner has  further  stated
\nthat popular film actor of Karnataka Mr.Rajkumar, along with three others, was
\nabducted  by  Veerappan on 30.7.2000 and the petitioner was again requested to
\ngo as Emissary and both the State Governments issued authorisation letters and
\nletters of immunity to the petitioner and his reporters  and  they  made  five
\ntrips  into  the  jungle  and  ultimately the hostages were released after 108
\ndays.  Xerox copies of those letters are also found in the  typed  set.    The
\ncopy  of  letter  of the then Commissioner of Police, Madras, dated 24.4.1998,
\naddressed to the petitioner, recording the formal  surrender  of  Siddhan,  an
\nassociate of Veerappan, to the police, is also enclosed in the typed set.  The
\nabove facts are not denied in the counter by the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
                15.   The  specific  contention  of the petitioner is that his
\nreporter was able to establish contact with forest brigand Veerappan  even  in
\nthe  year  1993  and in the year 1995, he got information that police has been
\ngiven shoot at sight orders against his reporters when they were in the jungle
\nand due to this,  he  sent  complaints  to  the  Press  Council  of  India  on
\n15.11.1995  and 21.11.1995 and the then Chairman of the Press Council of India
\nJustice P.B.Savant wrote a letter to the then Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu  to
\nintervene  personally  in  the matter and provide security to the staff of the
\nnewspaper.  Xerox copy of the letter of  the  Chairman  of  Press  Council  of
\nIndia, dated 17.1.1996, is found in the typed set.\n<\/p>\n
                16.   It  is  the further case of the petitioner that again in
\nthe year 1999, due to the harassment caused to the reporters  of  ‘Nakkheeran’
\nMagazine  by  the  Tamil  Nadu and Karnataka Special Task Force, complaint was
\nsent to the Press Council of India and a detailed enquiry was conducted by the
\nCommittee of Press Council and it concluded that the  complaint  is  true  and
\nadvised  the  police not to torture the reporters and the same was accepted by
\nthe Press Council.  A copy  of  the  report  of  the  Press  Council  is  also
\navailable in the typed set.\n<\/p>\n
                17.  According to the petitioner, the investigative journalism
\npractised  by his Magazine was inconvenient to public servants during the year
\n1991 to 1996 and the State machinery filed  about  100  cases  throughout  the
\nState  for a publication in one issue of Magazine and out of those cases, only
\nthree were charge sheeted and two of them were  ended  in  acquittal  and  the
\nother  case was not pursued by the Government and the petitioner was forced to
\nfile writ petitions in this regard.\n<\/p>\n
                18.  The petitioner has averred that the police in  the  guise
\nof further investigation started filing petitions under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.
\nin Veerappan related cases which were pending for years together only with the
\nmotive  of  roping  the  petitioner  and  his  reporters  as  accused  and the
\npetitioner has also filed writ petition seeking prohibition of  the  same  and
\nthe same is pending on the file of this Court.\n<\/p>\n
                19.   The  learned senior counsel for the petitioner contended
\nthat the apprehension of the petitioner that he will be subjected to  torture,
\nif  arrested  in  the  cases,  is  not  without  basis  and other reporters of
\n‘Nakkheeran’ Magazine,  who  were  made  accused  in  the  cases,  have  filed
\naffidavits alleging  torture.   A xerox copy of the complaint alleging torture
\nfiled by  Reporter  Sivasubramaniam  in  the  Court  of  Judicial  Magistrate,
\nBhavani,  in  Crime  No.438 of 1998, Vellithiruppur Police Station and a xerox
\ncopy of the affidavit of Reporter Krishnakumar @ Maharan alleging  torture  by
\nPolice  filed in W.P.(crl.) No.2 of 2003 before the Supreme Court are found in
\nthe typed set.  The learned senior counsel for the petitioner  submitted  that
\nJudicial  Magistrate,  Sathyamangalam,  declined  to grant custody of reporter
\nSivasubramaniam to the Investigation Officer in  P.R.C.No.10  of  2001  and  a
\nRevision  was  filed  by the State in Crl.R.P.No.902 of 2002 before this Court
\nand this Court in order, dated 13.5.2002, directed the  Investigating  Officer
\nto   examine   the   accused  in  the  room  allotted  inside  the  campus  of
\nSathyamangalam Court for two days.  A xerox copy of the order is also found in
\nthe typed set.\n<\/p>\n
                20.  In the counter affidavits filed by the respondents it  is
\nstated  that  the  petitioner and his associate Sivasubramanian appear to have
\ntaken a vital role in facilitating the members of Tamil Extremist Groups, such
\nas TNLA and TNRT, which  are  banned  organisations,  in  joining  hands  with
\nVeerappan  in  the  forest  and  the  observation  of the Supreme Court in the
\ndecision in Abdul Karim vs.  State of Karnataka<\/a> – (2001 SCC Crl.  59) is  also
\nextracted.   The  learned senior counsel for the petitioner contended that the
\nclaim of the  respondent  police  that  further  investigation  disclosed  the
\njoining  of Tamil Extremist Groups with Veerappan in the Sathyamangalam Forest
\nis not correct and the further investigation was commenced only on  20.11.2001
\nand  3.12.2001  in the cases and whereas the petitioner, wayback in 1998, came
\nto know of the same and has published the same as information  report  in  the
\n‘Nakkheeran’  Magazine  issue,  dated  29.12.1998 and also mentioned it in the
\npress statement of the petitioner, which was published in the Daily Newspapers
\n‘The Hindu’ and ‘Indian Express’ on 12.9.2000 and xerox copies of the same are
\nfiled in the typed set.  The above decision of the Apex Court arose in a  case
\npertaining  to  withdrawal  of prosecution against Veerappan and others in the
\nRajkumar Abduction Episode and in that decision, the Apex Court has  mentioned
\nthe  role played by the petitioner as Emissary in the matter and also observed
\nthat Veerappan was acting in  consultation  with  Secessionist  organisations\/
\ngroups which  had  the object of liberation of Tamil from India.  The decision
\nwas rendered on 7.11.2000 well before the further investigation ordered in the
\ncases and the contention of the petitioner in this  regard  cannot  be  easily
\nbrushed aside.\n<\/p>\n
                21.   The  next  contention of the respondents is that further
\ninvestigation discloses that Veerappan entertained a doubt  as  to  Kandhavelu
\nand  Bakthavatchalam  were police informants and when this was conveyed to the
\npetitioner, he clarified the matter through his Reporters Sivasubramanian  and
\nKrishnakumar  that  both  of  them  were  police informants and they should be
\neliminated and the petitioner had  been  to  Thalavady  Forest  prior  to  the
\noccurrences  in  both  the  murder  cases  and  he  has  an active role in the
\nkidnapping and murder of both the persons and the publication of  the  article
\nwith  photographs  in  the  magazine is with an oblique motive to deter others
\nfrom giving information to the police.  The petitioner in his reply  statement
\nhas  stated  that  in  the  year  1997 he went inside the forest as Government
\nEmissary to rescue the kidnapped forest  officials  and  after  one  year  the
\noccurrence  in the murder cases took place and the allegation that he informed
\nVeerappan that both the deceased persons were police informants is  false  and
\nthe  article  and the photographs were published with an object to educate the
\npublic about the atrocities of  Veerappan  besides  exposing  the  failure  of
\nSpecial  Task  Force  and  the  publications have advanced the cause of public
\ninterest.  According to the respondents, when the publications  were  made  in
\nthe year 1998, it was believed that the article was a product of investigative
\njournalism and it has now come to light that the petitioner had an active role
\nin kidnapping  and  murder  of both the persons.  Both the murder cases are in
\nthe stage of further investigation.  Detailed examination of the evidence  and
\nelaborate  documentation  of  the  merits of the cases should be avoided while
\npassing order on the anticipatory bail applications.\n<\/p>\n
                22.  According to the respondent, the investigation  is  still
\ncontinuing and  is  at  a  crucial  stage.  The learned senior counsel for the
\npetitioner contended that the further investigation  having  been  ordered  in
\nboth the cases in the year 2001 and after 15 months and 12 months respectively
\nfrom   the   date  of  order,  the  respondents  now  cannot  claim  that  the
\ninvestigation is at crucial stage.  This factual aspect cannot be denied.\n<\/p>\n
                23.  Lastly, it is urged by the respondents that incriminating
\nmaterials relating to the murder of both the persons are either in  possession
\nor  control of the petitioner and custodial interrogation of the petitioner is
\nnecessary and if he is released on anticipatory bail,  the  whole  process  of
\ninvestigation  would  be  stifled  and  there is possibility of abscondance of
\naccused and also tampering with evidence in the cases.  The  learned  Advocate
\nGeneral contended that the petitioner is absconding and even in the defamation
\ncase filed by him he did not appear in that court and he avoided arrest in the<\/p>\n
cases   and  public  interest  require  the  custodial  interrogation  of  the
\npetitioner which will disclose the contact of the petitioner  with  the  Tamil
\nExtremist Groups and Veerappan.\n<\/p>\n
                24.   The  learned  Public  Prosecutor  pointed out the report
\npublished by the petitioner in his magazine about the ‘mock  trial’  conducted
\nby  Veerappan  in  the  murder  of  Kandhavelu  and  Bakthavatchalam  and  the
\nphotographs published showing various stages and contended that the petitioner
\nis having possession of materials, including the camera, film roll, cassettes,
\nletters and cyanide and custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary
\nfor eliciting more useful information  and  material  and  the  Court  has  to
\npresume   that  police  officers  would  conduct  custodial  interrogation  in
\nresponsible manner and hence the petitioner should not be granted anticipatory
\nbail in the case and relied on the decision of the Apex Court in State, Rep.by
\nthe C.B.I.  vs.  Anil Sharma<\/a> – (1997 SCC (Cri) 1039)  in  this  regard.    The
\npetitioner in his reply statement has stated that immediately after his office
\nreceived  audio  cassette,  letter  and  the  film  roll  and  even before the
\npublication of the matter in the magazine, Mr.Kalimuthu,  the  then  Chief  of
\nTamil Nadu Special Task Force, was interviewed by placing the materials before
\nhim  and  subsequently  all  the  materials  were  handed  over to him and the
\npetitioner was  interrogated  with  reference  to  this  during  the  10  days
\ninterrogation   in   Rajkumar   abduction   case  by  CBCID  Special  Wing  at
\nGobichettipalayam and that was  also  videographed.    A  xerox  copy  of  the
\n‘Nakkheeran’   issue,   dated   24.11.1998,   publishing   the   interview  of
\nMr.Kalimuthu, the then Chief of Special Task Force, Tamil Nadu, is enclosed in
\nthe typed set and he has spoken about the audio cassette and  cyanide  in  the
\ninterview.  However, since the cases are under further investigation, detailed
\nexamination of  the  materials  has  to  be avoided.  The decision of the Apex
\nCourt referred to supra arose in an appeal assailing the pre-arrest bail order
\ngranted by the High Court in favour of a former minister of a State in a  case
\nregistered  for  the  offences  under  Prevention  of  Corruption Act with the
\nallegation that the respondent had amassed wealth far and excess of his  known
\nsources  of  income  and  the  Apex Court in the circumstances of the case and
\nafter the perusal of the case diary file concluded that  the  High  Court  has
\nmisdirected  itself  in  exercising  the discretionary power under Section 438
\nCr.P.C.  and allowed the appeal.\n<\/p>\n
                25.  The learned senior counsel for the  petitioner  contended
\nthat  the  petitioner  did not abscond as contended by the prosecution and the
\npetitioner has been interrogated for 10 days by CBCID  in  Rajkumar  abduction
\ncase and allegation of the prosecution that the privy of the petitioner in the
\nmurder cases is found out only during further investigation is not a ground to
\nput  against  the  petitioner at this stage and the apprehension of torture at
\nthe hands of police expressed by the petitioner was found to be reasonable  by
\nthis  Court  in  its  earlier order and the materials placed by the petitioner
\ndisclose the friction between the police and  the  petitioner  and  his  staff
\nright  from  1996 and hence the custodial interrogation should not be given to
\nthe respondents  and  the  petitioner  is  always  prepared  to  make  himself
\navailable  for interrogation as directed by the Court and relied on the recent
\njudgment of the Apex Court in Mahant Chand Nath Yogi and another vs.  State of
\nHaryana – (2003 SCC (Crl) 312) in this regard.  The above decision arose on an
\nappeal against the order  of  High  Court  cancelling  the  anticipatory  bail
\ngranted  to some of the accused in the case by the Sessions Court and the Apex
\nCourt held that the accused were interrogated on two occasions for  sufficient
\ntime  and  the  accused  were added in the case after a period of 4-1\/2 months
\nfrom the date of murder based on the  disclosure  statement  and  one  of  the
\naccused  has  alleged  that  he  was  falsely  implicated because of political
\nrivalry and the case was not in the initial stage  and  the  learned  Sessions
\nJudge  had  considered  the matter in detail and granted anticipatory bail and
\nthe same was erroneously set aside by the High Court and restored the order of
\nanticipatory bail passed by the Sessions Judge.\n<\/p>\n
                26.  The learned senior counsel  for  the  petitioner  further
\ncontended  that  the earlier State Government appreciated and acknowledged the
\nrole played by the petitioner as Emissary in rescuing  the  hostages  held  by
\nVeerappan  and  after the change of Government in 2001, the petitioner and his
\nteam were implicated in a series of  Veerappan  related  cases  and  decisions
\ntaken  at  Governmental level should not be so easily nullified by a change of
\nGovernment and by some other political party assuming power and relied on  the
\ndecision of  the  Apex  Court  in  State  of  Haryana vs.  State of Punjab and
\nanother -((2002) 2 SCC 507).  The  learned  Advocate  General  contended  that
\ninvestigation  of  criminal  case  does  not  become  vitiated  on  account of
\nmalafides and relied on the decision of the Apex Court in State of Haryana and
\nothers vs.  Bhajan Lal and others<\/a> – (1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335).  Insofar  as  the
\npresent cases are concerned, further investigation is in progress and evidence
\nis being collected.\n<\/p>\n
                27.   The  learned  Public Prosecutor emphasized that both the
\ncases relate to gruesome murders and the further investigation is in  progress
\nand  at  this  stage  pre-arrest bail should not be granted to the petitioner.
\nThe learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that as  per
\nthe ratio laid down by the Constitution Bench of the<\/p>\n
Apex Court  in  Gurbaksh Singh vs.  State of Punjab – (AIR 1980 SC 1632), even
\nif a non-bailable offence is alleged  to  have  been  committed  by  a  person
\nhappens to be an offence of murder, the High Court has the power under Section
\n438 Cr.P.C.   to grant anticipatory bail and further relied on the decision of
\nthe Apex Court in Salauddin Abdulsamad  Shaikh  vs.State  of  Maharashtra-(AIR
\n1996  SC  1042)  and a decision of this Court in S.Saravanan @ Saravanaperumal
\nvs.  The State – (19 95 Crl.L.J.  1999).  The power of the High Court  or  the
\nSessions Court under Section 438 Cr.P.C.  is well defined in various decisions
\nof  the  Apex  Court  and  in  grave  offences the Court has to be careful and
\ncircumspect in entertaining an application for anticipatory bail.\n<\/p>\n
                28.  The learned senior counsel for the  petitioner  contended
\nthat  the  petitioner  has  shown  malafides  on the part of the respondent by
\nplacing all materials and the petitioner has also shown  that  the  accusation
\nappears to stem from ulterior motive to humiliate the petitioner by having him
\narrested  and  hence  he is entitled for anticipatory bail in the cases as per
\nthe decision of the Apex Court in Gurubaksh Singh vs.  State of Punjab –  (AIR
\n1980 SC  1632).    The  allegation of malafides cannot be gone into in detail,
\nsince the cases are under further investigation.  Still, it is true  that  the
\npetitioner has placed enough materials before the Court to show that there was
\nfriction between the petitioner and the police machinery for a long time.\n<\/p>\n
                29.  The petitioner apprehends torture at the hands of police,
\nif subjected  to custodial interrogation in the cases.  In fact, it is already
\nseen that this Court found the apprehension of the  petitioner  reasonable  in
\nanother  case  and  granted  pre-arrest bail on condition to appear before the
\nInvestigation Officer for 10  days  and  the  petitioner  has  also  subjected
\nhimself for  interrogation  as ordered by this Court.  Even though the present
\ncases relate to the offence of murder,  the  context  in  which  the  judicial
\ndiscretion under  Section  438  Cr.P.C.    is required to be exercised assumes
\nimportance.  Having regard to the materials placed by the petitioner, I am  of
\nthe  view  that the petitioner has made out a case for pre-arrest bail in both
\nthe cases.      Insofar as interrogation is concerned, I am inclined to follow
\nthe earlier order of this Court passed against this  petitioner.    Since  the
\nfurther  investigation  is done in both the cases by CBCID, the petitioner can
\nbe directed to appear before the Additional Superintendent  of  Police,  CBCID
\nSpecial  Wing,  Gobichettipalayam,  for  15  days  in  both the cases, for the
\npurpose of interrogation, every day between 10.00 a.m.  and 3.00 p.m.  and the
\nAdditional Director General of Police, CBCID, Chennai, shall also be  directed
\nto monitor th e interrogation of the petitioner and ensure his safety.\n<\/p>\n
                30.   In  result,  it  is ordered that the petitioner shall be
\nreleased on bail in the event of his arrest or  his  surrendering  before  the
\nCourt  in Crime No.676 of 1998 of Anthiyur Police Station, Erode District, now
\ntransferred to CBCID and also in Crime No.1500 of 1998 of B-1 Police  Station,
\nCoimbatore,  now transferred to CBCID on his executing personal bond for a sum
\nof Rs.25,000\/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) in each case, with two  sureties,
\neach  for  a  like  sum  in  both  the  cases, to the satisfaction of Judicial
\nMagistrate  No.I,  Gobichettipalayam  and  on  further  condition   that   the
\npetitioner  shall appear before the Additional Superintendent of Police, CBCID
\nSpecial Wing, Gobichettipalayam, for 15  days  in  both  the  cases,  for  the
\npurpose of interrogation,  every  day  between  10.00 a.m.  and 3.00 p.m.  The
\nAdditional Director General of Police, CBCID, Chennai, is directed to  monitor
\nthe interrogation of the petitioner and ensure his safety.\n<\/p>\n
                31.  The petitioner shall surrender before the concerned court
\nwithin 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.\n<\/p>\n
Index: Yes
\nInternet: Yes
\ngb.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court R.R.Gopal @ Nakkheeran Gopal vs State on 5 March, 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 05\/03\/2003 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.NAGAPPAN CRL.O.P.NO.4254 OF 2003 AND CRL.O.P.NO.4255 OF 2003 R.R.Gopal @ Nakkheeran Gopal … Petitioner in both the petitions -Vs- State, represented by Inspector of Police, Anthiyur Police Station […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-133150","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nR.R.Gopal @ Nakkheeran Gopal vs State on 5 March, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-r-gopal-nakkheeran-gopal-vs-state-on-5-march-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"R.R.Gopal @ Nakkheeran Gopal vs State on 5 March, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-r-gopal-nakkheeran-gopal-vs-state-on-5-march-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2003-03-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-27T21:18:39+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"35 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-r-gopal-nakkheeran-gopal-vs-state-on-5-march-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-r-gopal-nakkheeran-gopal-vs-state-on-5-march-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"R.R.Gopal @ Nakkheeran Gopal vs State on 5 March, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-03-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-27T21:18:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-r-gopal-nakkheeran-gopal-vs-state-on-5-march-2003\"},\"wordCount\":6819,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-r-gopal-nakkheeran-gopal-vs-state-on-5-march-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-r-gopal-nakkheeran-gopal-vs-state-on-5-march-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-r-gopal-nakkheeran-gopal-vs-state-on-5-march-2003\",\"name\":\"R.R.Gopal @ Nakkheeran Gopal vs State on 5 March, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-03-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-27T21:18:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-r-gopal-nakkheeran-gopal-vs-state-on-5-march-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-r-gopal-nakkheeran-gopal-vs-state-on-5-march-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-r-gopal-nakkheeran-gopal-vs-state-on-5-march-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"R.R.Gopal @ Nakkheeran Gopal vs State on 5 March, 2003\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"R.R.Gopal @ Nakkheeran Gopal vs State on 5 March, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-r-gopal-nakkheeran-gopal-vs-state-on-5-march-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"R.R.Gopal @ Nakkheeran Gopal vs State on 5 March, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-r-gopal-nakkheeran-gopal-vs-state-on-5-march-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-03-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-27T21:18:39+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"35 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-r-gopal-nakkheeran-gopal-vs-state-on-5-march-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-r-gopal-nakkheeran-gopal-vs-state-on-5-march-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"R.R.Gopal @ Nakkheeran Gopal vs State on 5 March, 2003","datePublished":"2003-03-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-27T21:18:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-r-gopal-nakkheeran-gopal-vs-state-on-5-march-2003"},"wordCount":6819,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-r-gopal-nakkheeran-gopal-vs-state-on-5-march-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-r-gopal-nakkheeran-gopal-vs-state-on-5-march-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-r-gopal-nakkheeran-gopal-vs-state-on-5-march-2003","name":"R.R.Gopal @ Nakkheeran Gopal vs State on 5 March, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-03-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-27T21:18:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-r-gopal-nakkheeran-gopal-vs-state-on-5-march-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-r-gopal-nakkheeran-gopal-vs-state-on-5-march-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-r-gopal-nakkheeran-gopal-vs-state-on-5-march-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"R.R.Gopal @ Nakkheeran Gopal vs State on 5 March, 2003"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/133150","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=133150"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/133150\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=133150"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=133150"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=133150"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}