Balaji v. State Rep By

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 05.07.2022 for the alleged offence under Sections 147, 148, 294(b) and 302 I.P.C. r/w 149 of I.P.C. in Crime No.756 of 2014 on the file of the respondent police pending trial in S.C. No.53 of 2017 on the file of learned II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur at Poonamallee, seeks bail.

2. It is a case of jumped bail. The petitioner was arrested on 05.07.2022 pursuant to the non-bailable warrant issued against him.

3. The learned counsel appearing for petitioner would submit that the petitioner was earlier granted bail and thereafter, he was regularly appearing before the trial Court. On 22.11.2021, he was unable to appear before the Court and subsequently, the learned Magistrate issued non bailable warrant against the petitioner following which, the petitioner was

arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 05.07.2022. However, the petitioner was arrested on 11.05.2022 in another case in Crime No.305 of 2021 for the offence under Sec.341, 294(b), 325, 307 and 506(ii) of I.P.C. and he was remanded on 11.05.2022. He would submit that since he was in prison, he was arrested and produced by way of PT warrant on 05.07.2022 and remanded to judicial custody. He would submit that the petitioner has not cross-examined the witnesses, however, counsel for petitioner submitted that he needs time to arrange counsel to defend his case. He would submit that the petitioner has been suffering incarceration for 162 days from 05.07.2022. He would submit that he is ready to appear before the Court regularly and to co-operate for the trial. Hence, he prayed to grant bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for respondent would submit that the petitioner is absconding for more than one year and thereafter, after hectic efforts, he was secured only on 05.07.2022. He would further submit that there are 14 previous cases including 3 murder cases and two Sec.307 I.P.C. cases pending against the

petitioner. He would submit that already P.W.1 to 13 were examined and another five witnesses are yet to be examined. He would submit that they will complete the trial within three months and only after securing the petitioner, the trial was began. Hence, if he is released on bail, there is possibility of hampering the investigation. Therefore, he vehemently opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

5. Considering the fact that after one year, he was secured, however, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that he needs time to engage the counsel to defend his case, but the legal aid counsel is very much available to the petitioner, if he needs, so, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 15.12.2022 rpp

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

rpp 15.12.2022