Murugesan v. The State Rep By Its,

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

The petitioner, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 19.03.2022 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341, 302, 307 of IPC, in Crime No.55 of 2022 on file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution as per the de-facto complainant is that on 01.02.2022, the accused have waylaid him and one Selvam and indiscriminately assaulted the said Selvam with knife and when the de-facto complainant attempted to prevent them, they have also assaulted the de-facto complainant. In which, the said Selvam suffered grievous injuries on his head and dead. Hence the case.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioner was detained under Goondas Act on 22.04.2022 and subsequently, this Court by an order dated 15.12.2022 in H.C.P.No.1007

of 2022 has set aside the detention order passed as against the petitioner. He further submitted that the petitioner is no way connected with the alleged incident and he has been in custody from 19.03.2022 and he is ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays to grant bail to the petitioner.

4. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent Police submitted that the petitioner (A7) is a notorious criminal against whom several previous cases including four cases under Section 302 IPC are pending. He further submitted that he along with the other accused conspired together and murdered one Selvam and caused injuries to the defacto complainant. He also stated that the investigation has been completed and the charge sheet has also been filed in S.C.No.156 of 2022 pending on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu, thereby, if he is released on bail, there is every chance for him to abscond and will tamper with the witnesses and hamper the trial proceedings. Therefore, he vehemently opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent and perused the entire materials available on record.

6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) and taking note of the fact that the case has been taken up on the file of the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu and also considering the previous antecedents of the petitioner, this Court finds that he is not entitled to grant of bail. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 23.01.2023 ham

T.V.THAMILSELVI,J.

ham 23.01.2023