Vikku Alias Shanmugam v. The State Rep By, Inspector Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 25.03.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Vikku @ Shanmugam
...Petitioner/Accused
Vs.
State rep by The Inspector of Police, Ramanathapuram Police Station, Coimbatore City.
(Crime No.160 of 2024) ...
Respondent PRAYER: This criminal original petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS to enlarge the petitioners on bail in Crime No.160 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police.
For Petitioner :
Mr.R.Thamaraiselvan For Respondent :
Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Government Advocate (Crl. Side) Page No.1 of 5
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 24.06.2024, seeking bail in Crime No.160 of 2024 registered for the offence under Sections 341, 195(A), 506(ii) of IPC.
2.It is the case of the prosecution that the defacto complainant was working as a Sweeper in a School for the past 30 years; that her husband does not got to work due to old age; that at the earlier occasion in the year 2019, due to previous enmity, her son was stabbed by the petitioner along with the other accused; that when the defacto complainant was going to give evidence in that case before the Trial Court, the petitioner threatened her of dire consequences. Hence, the case.
3.This is the sixth bail application filed by the petitioner. The earlier bail application was dismissed by this Court on 28.11.2024 by making the following observations:
Page No.2 of 5
5.Considering the above facts and circumstances and according to the prosecution, when the defacto complainant went to give evidence for the death of a person, she was threatened by the petitioner with dire consequences and also the fact of his past antecedents, he is having 10 previous cases pending against him, in which two cases registered under Section 302 of IPC and three cases were registered under Section 307 of IPC and two cases are similar in nature and the fact that he has made obstruction not to cross-examine the witness and the fact that investigation was completed, final report was filed and the trial was also commenced and so, at this stage, if he is released on bail, he may abscond and there is possibility of tampering evidence and hampering investigation and also the fact that there is no change of circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.
4.Though the earlier bail petition of the petitioner was dismissed on 28.11.2024 by my learned predecessor, Hon'ble Justice T.V.Thamilselvi, this petition is listed before this Court pursuant to the orders passed by the Page No.3 of 5
Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Crl.O.P.No.31787 of 2024 on 04.03.2025.
5.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) on instructions would submit that the trial will be completed within a period of one month. 6.Considering the aforesaid facts and the bad antecedents of the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. However, if the trial is not completed within a period of two months, the petitioner shall be at liberty to renew the bail application.
25.03.2025 ata Page No.4 of 5
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
ata 25.03.2025 Page No.5 of 5