Nayagan v. State Rep By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 11.09.2020 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA Crl.O.P.No.11171 of 2020 Nayagan ... Petitioner Vs.

State represented by The Inspector of Police Nallur Police Station Namakkal District (Crime No.87 of 2012) ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.87 of 2012 pending investigation on the file of the respondent. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Marudhachalamurthy For Respondent : Mr.T.Shunmugarajeswaran Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

O R D E R

(The case has been heard through video conference) The petitioner,who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 07.12.2019 for the offences punishable under Section 395,341,395 r/w 397,502(ii)IPC,in Crime No.87 of 2012, seeks bail.

2. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side0 would submit that it is a case of jumped bail. The petitioner is an accused in Crime No.87 of 2012,for the offences punishable under Section 395, 341, 395 r/w 397,502(ii) IPC. The petitioner was originally arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 08.04.2012.After completion of investigation, the final report was also filed and the matter was take up for trial in S.C.No.90 of 2019.While the trial was going on, the petitioner absconded and thereby the Trial Court issued NBW. Since the petitioner was arrested in some other case,he was produced on P.T. warrant before the Trial Court on 07.12.2019.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent, since the petitioner did not appear before the Trial Court due to illness, NBW was issued against him and he was produced before the Court on P.T. Warrant. He would further submit that the petitioner is in judicial custody for almost nine months and thereby he seeks for bail.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would vehemently oppose stating that it is a case of the year 2012. Originally, the case was taken up for trial in S.C.73 of 2017, then after abscondance of some accused it was split up and was taken in S.C.No.123 of 2018 and once again split up and now it has been taken up in S.C.No.90 of 2019. He would further submit that totally there are six accused and the petitioner is A6.One after the other have started to abscond and the sessions case has been split up thrice.As of now, the case has been taken up in S.C.No.90 of 2019 and till date out of 10 witnesses, 9 witnesses have been examined.He would further submit that only the Investigation Officer remaining to be examined and if at this stage, if the bail is granted to the petitioner,there is every chance of the petitioner getting absconded and once again it would be difficult for the respondent police to arrest him. He would further submit that there are six previous cases of similar nature pending against this petitioner.

5. Taking into consideration of the submissions so made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) and also considering the fact that the trial is in the final stage and the petitioner has also got six previous cases of similar nature, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

6. The Criminal original petition stands dismissed accordingly.

-sd/- 11/09/2020 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 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, PARAMATHI 2 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON,SALEM 3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NALLUR POLICE STATION, NAMAKKAL DISTRICT.

+1 CC to M/S. R.MARUDHACHALAMURTHY Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.NO.6229 CRL OP.11171/2020 Date :11/09/2020 GKS:17/09/2020