Ramesh v. State Rep By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 11.05.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Ramesh ... Petitioner Vs.

The State represented by, The Inspector of Police, Mailam Police Station, Villupuram.

(Crime No.143 of 2023).

... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., pleased to enlarge the petitioner/accused on bail, in Crime No.143 of 2023, pending investigation on the file of the respondent Police. For Petitioner : Mr.C.Iyyapparaj For Respondent : Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor 1/6

O R D E R

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 06.04.2023, for the offence punishable under Section 174 Cr.P.C @ Section 302 of IPC, in connection with Crime No.143 of 2023, registered on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail. 2.Based on the complaint given by the defacto complainant, that his son was found dead near the School in Mailam, a case in Crime No.143 of 2023 has been registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C and later, it came to light that the accused, due to the dispute on account of parking vehicle, had murdered his son. Thereby, the case has been altered to one under Section 302 of IPC. Hence the case.

3. The learned counsel appearing for petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that the petitioner does not know the victim and also he is not even present at the scene of occurrence, whereas, the petitioner has been unnecessarily roped into this case. He would further 2/6

submit that the petitioner is in judicial custody from 06.04.2023 and the investigation has been almost completed. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

4.Learned learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent submitted that due to dispute on account of parking the vehicle, the petitioner had murdered the son of the defacto complainant. He further submitted that the investigation is still pending and hence, he opposed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

5. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also considering that the petitioner is in custody from 06.04.2023, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

6. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned 3/6

Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tindivanam, and on further conditions that: [a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent Police, daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders.

[c] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

[d] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial; [e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560]; [f] If the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.

11.05.2023 vkr 4/6

To

1. The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tindivanam.

2. The Inspector of Police, Mailam Police Station, Villupuram.

3. The Central Prison, Cuddalore.

4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

5/6

SUNDER MOHAN, J vkr 11.05.2023 6/6