R.Rejina v. State Rep By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 03.11.2022

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA R.Regina ... Petitioner Vs.

The State represented by, The Inspector of Police, T.Palur Police Station, Ariyalur District, Tamil Nadu.

(Crime No.233/2022) ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with the Crime No.233 of 2022 dated 07.09.2022 pending investigation on the file of the respondent Police.

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Alexis Sudhakar For Respondent : Mr.C.E.Pratap Government Advocate (Crl.Side) 1/7

O R D E R

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 09.09.2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302 of IPC @ 147, 148, 302, 120 (B), 34 of IPC, in Crime No.233 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on retaliation to the murder of the brother of the first accused/Selvamani, the petitioner along with the other accused conspired together, unlawfully assembled and committed murder of the one Swaminathan by indiscriminately attacking him with knife. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and she has been falsely implicated in this case, since she happens to be the wife of the first accused. He would also submit that the allegation attributed as against the petitioner is that she had watched the movement of the victim and informed the same to the other accused. He would also submit that other than the confession statement recorded from the other accused, there is no material to show that the 2/7

petitioner was present at the scene of occurrence. He would also submit that there is no previous case as against the petitioner and she is in custody from 09.09.2022 and she is also prepared to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. He would further submit that the similarly placed co-accused has been granted with bail by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.26569 of 2022 dated 02.11.2022 and hence, he prays for grant of bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that the petitioner is the wife of the first accused. He would further submit that due to the previous enmity on account of the murder of one Selvamani, brother of A1, the petitioner along with the other accused conspired together and waylaid the deceased and assaulted him with knife, due to which, he suffered grievous injuries and died on the spot. He would further submit that the allegation as against the present petitioner is that she had watched the movement of the victim and informed the same to the other accused, pursuant to which, the murder has been committed. He would also submit that the petitioner is well aware of the conspiracy made by the other accused to commit murder of the victim. He would also state that there is no previous 3/7

case as against the petitioner. However, he vehemently opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) and perused the materials available on record.

6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel and also considering the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on her executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Principal Sessions Court, Ariyalur, 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 4/7

Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;

[b] the petitioner shall stay at Chennai and report before the Inspector of Police, North Beach Police Station, every day at 10.30 a.m. and 5.30 p.m., until further orders;

[c] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial; [d] the petitioner shall not abscond 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 absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC; 03.11.2022 ham 5/7

To

1. The Principal Sessions Court, Ariyalur.

2. The Inspector of Police, T.Palur Police Station, Ariyalur District.

3. The Central Prison, Trichy.

4. The Inspector of Police, North Beach Police Station, Chennai.

5. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

6/7

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA.,J.

ham 03.11.2022 7/7