Meenakshi Sundaram @ Sundaram v. State Rep By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Nineteenth day of April Two Thousand Twenty One PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.4889 of 2021 S.C.NO.77 of 2018 (ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED MAHILA COURT, CHENGALPATTU) MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM @ SUNDARAM [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ] Vs STATE REP BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUNDRATHUR POLICE STATION, CHENNAI.

CR.NO.1101/2018.

For Petitioner : M/S.P.KRISHNAN Advocate For Respondent : M/S.R.ANEESAN, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR BAIL 439 Cr.P.C.

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner/A2, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 01.09.2018, for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and subsequently altered to Section 302 and 120(b) r/w 109 of IPC in Crime No.1101 of 2018 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is the husband of the first accused and they had two children. It is alleged that the first accused had illegal relationship with this petitioner/A2 due to which, the first accused is alleged to have committed murder of her own two children with the help of this petitioner/A2. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner did not commit any offence as alleged by the prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Further, he submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody from 01.09.2018 and this is the 4th bail application. Hence, he sought for bail to the petitioner.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. The learned Government Advocate (crl.side) would submit that the petitioner has committed heinous offence and hence he vehemently opposed for grant of bail to the petitioner. He further submitted that the case is pending for trial in S.C.No.77 of 2018 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Court, Kancheepuram and there is no change of circumstances in this case.

5. Considering the nature of offence and taking note of the fact that there is no change of circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Further, considering the period of incarceration of the petitioner from 01.09.2018, the trial Court was already directed to complete the trial within a time frame. 6.With the above observation, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

-sd/- 19/04/2021 This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned TRUE COPY Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104.

TO THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, KANCHEEPURAM THE MAHILA COURT, CHENGALPATTU.

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUNDRATHUR POLICE STATION, CHENNAI.

4 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

5 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, PUZHAL.

CC to M/S.P.KRISHNAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.4889/2021 Date :19/04/2021 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ TA-04/05/2021