Karunakaran v. State Rep.By The Inspector Of Police

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 03.01.2023 for the alleged offence under Sections 147, 148 and 302 of I.P.C. in Crime No.03 of 2023 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of prosecution is that earlier, due to matrimonial dispute, deceased attacked his wife with deadly weapons, due to which she died. Hence, he was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. However, his relatives did not take any steps to release him from custody, thereby, he has threatened and gave life threat to A1. Due to which, on 03.01.2023 around 07.30 a.m. there was a wordy quarrel between them, in which A1 and his friends waylaid the deceased and A2 and A3 murdered the deceased by using knife. thereby the deceased succumbed to injuries. Hence, the complaint was registered against the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that he is friend of A1 and A2 and he did not have any motive towards the deceased and a false case was foisted against him for the reason that he is friend of A1. Hence, he is no way connected with the offence and he is not at all present in the scene of occurrence. He would submit that he has not at all committed any of offence as alleged by the respondent police and he has been falsely implicated in this case and he will abide by any condition imposed by this court. He would submit that he is only a friend of A1 and he is not relative of deceased. He would further submit that the investigation is almost completed and that the petitioner has been suffering incarceration from 03.01.2023. Hence, he prayed to grant bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for respondent would submit that totally, there are 6 accused involved in this case and the petitioner is arrayed as A6. He would submit that in this case, one Singaravelu, who was deceased murdered his own wife, for which, he

was remanded to judicial custody, however, none of his relatives taken steps to see him in jail, due to which, on the date of occurrence, there was a wordy quarrel between the deceased and the petitioner, thereby A1 and A2 attacked him with deadly weapons, resulting in which he succumbed to injuries. He would submit that that if he is released on bail, he would tamper the witnesses and hamper the investigation and the investigation is almost completed. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by both counsel and considering the gravity of offence committed by the petitioner and also the fact that on the date of occurrence, when the relatives of deceased did not take any steps to release him from custody, there was a wordy quarrel between the deceased and the petitioner, who was accompanied with other accused, thereby, they brutally attacked him with iron road, resulting in which, he succumbed to injuries and the investigation is not yet completed and the fact that if he is released on bail, there is possibility of tampering the witnesses and hampering investigation,

this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

13.02.2023 rpp T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

rpp 13.02.2023