Karthi @ Karthikeyan v. State Rep By

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 19.09.2022 for the alleged offence under Sections 120(b), 148, 341, 302 of I.P.C. in Crime No.223 of 2016 on the file of the respondent police pending trial in S.C. No.40 of 2019 on the file of learned Addl. District Judge, Mayiladuthurai, seeks bail.

2. It is a case of jumped bail. The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 19.09.2022 pursuant to the non-bailable warrant issued against him.

3. The learned counsel appearing for petitioner would submit that the petitioner was earlier granted bail and thereafter, he was regularly appearing before the trial Court. During the pendency of the case, the petitioner went to Karnataka for his work and hence, he was unable to appear before the Court and subsequently, the learned Magistrate issued non bailable warrant against the petitioner, thereby he was detained under

PT warrant on 19.09.2022 on execution of non-bailable warrant. He would submit that he is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He would submit that he has not at all committed any offence and he is ready to abide any condition that may be imposed by this court. He would submit that he is ready to appear before the Court regularly and to co-operate for the trial. Hence, he prayed to grant bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for respondent would submit that as he was not appeared before the trial court, the learned Magistrate issued PT warrant and subsequently, the petitioner was arrested on 19.09.2022 on execution of PT warrant. He would submit that there are 7 previous cases including two murder cases pending against him He would further submit that after securing him only, there is a progress in the trial and now the case is posted for framing of charges. He would submit that they will complete the trial as early as possible. Hence, if he is released on bail, there is possibility of hampering the investigation. Therefore, he vehemently opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

5. Considering the above facts and circumstances and also the fact that after securing him only, there is a progress in the trial and now the case is posted for framing charges, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 11.01.2023 rpp

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

rpp 11.01.2023