Udhyakumar v. Home, Prohibition And Excise Department
T.V.THAMILSELVI,J.
The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 07.03.2024 in Crime No.24 of 2024 registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 of IPC @ Sections 279, 304(A) of IPC @ 302 IPC and altered to Sections 120(B), 109, 147 and 302 IPC, seeks bail.
2. The learned counsel appearing for petitioner would submit that he is an innocent person and he was falsely implicated in this case. He would submit that he is a Priest of the temple, where his vehicle was parked, except that he is no way connected with the alleged occurrence. He would submit that investigation is almost completed and he is ready to comply with the condition imposed by this court. He would also submit that the petitioner has been suffering incarceration from 12.02.2024. Hence, he prays to grant bail to the petitioner.
3. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that based on the complaint given by the de facto complainant that an unknown four-wheeler had hit his husband, due to which, he sustained grievous injuries and he was admitted in the hospital, a
case in Crime No.24 of 2024 came to be registered for the offence under Sections 279 & 337 of IPC. Later, during the course of investigation, it came to light that due to the previous enmity, the accused colluded together and planned to murder the husband of the de facto complainant, thereby, on 02.02.2024, the accused had intentionally driven their car in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the victim. He further submitted that unfortunately the victim died on the same day without responding to the treatment. Thereby, the case has been altered to the offence under Sections 120(b), 109, 147 and 302 IPC.
He further submitted that the petitioner herein is directly involved in the commission of offence and the investigation is not yet completed, at this stage, if the petitioner is released on bail, there is a possibility of tampering the evidence. Furthermore, he worked in the police department and all were in Reserved Police Force. He would submit that he conspired with other accused to conceal the CCTV footage, thereby he actively participated in concealing the offence. Hence, he opposed for grant of bail to the petitioner.
4. Considering the above facts and circumstances and according to prosecution, the petitioner is working in police department and he conspired with other accused to conceal the CCTV footage, thereby he has actively participated in concealing the offence and so, on seeing the conduct of
petitioner and also the fact that the investigation is not yet completed and at this stage, if he is released on bail, he may abscond and there is possibility of tampering evidence and hampering investigation, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
5.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 12.06.2024 gd
T.V.THAMILSELVI,J.
gd 12.06.2024