Shunpriya v. State By

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 04.01.2024 for the alleged offence under Sections 279, 304(A) of I.P.C., 134(a) 134(b) r/w 187 of M.V.Act and Sec.302, 120(B) of I.P.C. in Crime No.4 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is the sister of deceased and she had lodged a complaint stating that one Sarath Kumar hit the motor cycle driven by the deceased by his car, thereby the petitioner said to have committed murder of deceased. It is also alleged that she had illicit intimacy with other accused, thereby they said to have hatched conspiracy to commit murder of deceased and they projected it as an accident. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that she has been falsely implicated in this case, in fact, her husband was died in the accident

and sister of deceased/defacto complainant gave a false complaint as if she had involved in the alleged accident along with other accused A1 and A2. He would submit that she has not at all committed any offence as alleged by the respondent police and she is no way connected with the said concern. He would submit that there is no overtact attributed against her and there is no role of the petitioner in the alleged offence and she has been falsely implicated as accused in this case. He would further submit that the investigation is almost completed and that the petitioner has been suffering incarceration for more than 89 days from 04.01.2024. Hence, he prayed to grant bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for respondent would submit that on the date alleged accident, A1 and A2 have planned to murder him, thereby they hit the deceased by his car, due to which he sustained injury and he was admitted in the hospital and subsequently he died. He would submit that totally two accused involved in this case, in which the petitioner is arrayed as A3 and no previous case pending against her. He would also submit that if she is released on bail, she will tamper the witnesses and hamper the investigation and the

investigation is not yet completed. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

5. According to the prosecution, A2 Harikrishnan developed illicit intimacy with A3/this petitioner, who are neighbours and when it was objected by her husband, they have planned to kill him, thereby A1 hit the motorcycle driven by the deceased by his car, in which he sustained injury and after treatement, he died. Therefore, on considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by both counsel and also on considering the gravity of offence committed by the petitioner, and the fact that investigation is still pending and there is possibility of tampering the witnesses and hampering the investigation, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

02.04.2024 rpp

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

rpp 02.04.2024