Thirumalai v. Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 23.12.2022

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI Crl.O.P.No.31997 of 2022

1. Thirumalai, S/o. Muniappan

2. Prasanth, S/o. Anbalagan .. Petitioners Vs.

State represented by The Inspector of Police, Krishnapuram Police Station, Dharmapuri Dt.

(Crime No.136 of 2022) .. Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in Crime No.136 of 2022 on the file of respondent police.

For Petitioners :

Mr.V.Sakkarapani For Respondent :

Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side)

O R D E R

The 1st petitioner was arrested on 26.10.2022 and the 2nd petitioner was arrested on 27.10.2022 for the alleged offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. in Crime No.136 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police, seek bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased person is husband of A2 and there is a land dispute between the 1st wife family and defacto complainant's family. On 18.10.2022 at about 06.00 a.m., the defacto complainant's husband went out for work and thereafter he did not return back to home. However, at about 7.45 p.m. driver of Sriram Matriculation School, Kambainallur informer her that her husband died near mango thottam. Immediately, she went to the place of occurrence and saw her husband died due to cut injuries on the head and neck. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that 1st petitioner is son of deceased and the 2nd petitioner is friend of A1. He would submit that they have not at all committed any offence as alleged by the respondent police and they are no way connected with the offence. He would submit that they have been falsely implicated in this case for statistical purpose. He would further submit that the investigation is almost completed and that the petitioners have been suffering incarceration for from 26/27.10.2022. Hence, he prayed to grant bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for respondent would submit that totally, there are 5 accused and 1st petitioner is arrayed as A1 and the 2nd petitioner is arrayed as A3. He would submit that A1 and A2 are son and wife of deceased and the defacto complainant seems to be second wife and due to family dispute, the occurrence was happened. He would submit that the 1st petitioner is the root cause of the occurrence. He would also submit that if they are released on bail, they will tamper the witnesses and hamper the investigation. Hence, he vehemently opposed to

grant bail to the petitioners.

5. So far as the 1st petitioner is concerned, considering the fact that based on the contention of petitioner, A1 is son of deceased first wife and he wanted to cause death of father due to a land dispute, thereby, he is the rootcause for the occurrence, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the 1st petitioner.

6. Considering the fact that the investigation is almost completed, and also the fact that the specific overtact against the petitioner is that he accompanied A1 and he is custody for more than 56 days, and considering the period of incarceration undergone by the 2nd petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the 2nd petitioner with certain conditions.

7. Accordingly, the 2nd petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on executing his separate bonds for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the

learned Addl. Mahila Court, Dharmapuri, 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 Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;

(b) the 2nd petitioner shall stay at Dindigul and report before the Town Police Station, Dindigul daily at 10.30 a.m. for the period of eight weeks and thereafter on every Saturday at 10.30 a.m. for another period of eight weeks.

(c) the 2nd petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial; (d) the 2nd 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 2nd petitioner in accordance with law as if the

conditions have been imposed and the 2nd 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]; and;

(f) if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229-A IPC.

23.12.2022 rpp To 1.The Addl. Mahila Court, Dharmapuri.

2.The Inspector of Police, Krishnapuram Police Station, Dharmapuri Dt.

3. The Superintendent District Jail, Dharmapuri.

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

rpp 23.12.2022