Rosary Greaten v. State Rep.By

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.

This is the third bail application filed by the petitioner/A2 in Crime No.288 of 2022, registered by the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 449, 307 & 302 of IPC. 2.The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the petitioner/A2 has been in custody for a substantial number of months and nearly more than a year and therefore stated that since the investigation has been completed, bail should be granted.

3.It is also stated that the defacto complainant was only a hearsay witness and he was not present at the scene of occurrence. At the same time, it is also represented that in the complaint, the name of the present accused was not given.

4.It is only natural that the names of the accused are not given since even according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the defacto complainant was not present at the time of occurrence. If he had given the names then it would have been used to the advantage of the petitioner herein. There was one person who died and other persons suffered injuries. In the previous bail application, which had been dismissed, it had been very 1/3

specifically stated that there was a continuous rivalry between A1, A2 and A3 primarily and the defacto complainant owing to business and political rivalry. 5.It is also stated that there is also a life threat to A1 and A2. A1, A2 and A6 alone are still in judicial custody and other accused had been released on bail.

6.Taking that factor into consideration, let the injured witness be examined and cross-examined and thereafter, the issuance of bail can be considered. At this stage, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner herein. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 24.11.2023 (1/2) ata/rjr C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.

2/3

ata Crl.O.P.No.25696 of 2023 24.11.2023 (1/2) 3/3