Madhan @ Madhankumar v. State Rep By

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 11.08.2019 for the alleged offence under Section 120(B), 449, 302, 302 r/w 120(B) of I.P.C. in Crime No.293 of 2013 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. It is a case of jumped bail. The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 11.08.2019 pursuant to the non-bailable warrant issued against him.

3. The learned counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that his name is not found in the F.I.R. and he is no way connected with the offence. He would submit that earlier he was granted bail and subsequently, due to his non-appearance, the learned Magistrate issued a non-bailable warrant on 22.01.2019 and subsequently, he was arrested on 11.08.2019. He would submit that he has not at all committed any of offence as alleged

by the respondent police and he has been falsely implicated in this case and he will abide by any condition imposed by this court. He would further submit that the investigation is almost completed and that the petitioner has been suffering incarceration from 11.08.2019. Hence, he prayed to grant bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for respondent would submit that totally, there are 5 accused involved in this case and the petitioner is arrayed as A2. He would submit that earlier he was granted bail and subsequently, due to his non-appearance, the learned Magistrate issued a non-bailable warrant and subsequently, after hectic efforts, he was secured only on 11.08.2019. He would submit that the present case is of double murder and there are six previous cases pending against him. He would submit that due to his long absence, there was no progress in the trial. He would submit that that if he is released on bail, he would tamper the witnesses and hamper the investigation. He would submit that the investigation is almost completed and final report was filed and the same was taken on file as P.R.C.No. 11 of 2015 on the file of learned

Judicial Magistrate No.2, Namakkal. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by both counsel and also considering gravity of offence committed by the petitioner, a detailed investigation is required in this case and also the fact that due to his long absence, there was no progress in the trial and after hectic efforts, he was secured and there is possibility of tampering the witnesses and hampering the investigation, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

22.12.2022 rpp T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

rpp 22.12.2022