Raghu Ganesh v. The Additional Superintendent Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) RESERVED ON : 06/03/2025 PRONOUNCED ON: 26/03/2023 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice K.MURALI SHANKAR Raghu Ganesh ... Petitioner/ Accused No.3 Vs State represented by The Additional Superintendent of Police, CBI/SCU-V, SC II,New Delhi.

(Crime No.0502020S0008/2020 and (Crime No.0502020S0009/2020) ... Respondent/ Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.S.I.Sharukumar Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.C.Muthu Saravanan, Special Public Prosecutor for CBI cases.

1/25

For Intervenor : Mr.V.Rajiv Rufus, Advocate.

PETITION FOR BAIL Under Section 483 BNSS, 2023. PRAYER :- For Bail in S.C.No.470 of 2020 on the file of the I Additional District Court, Madurai, in Crime No. 0502020S0008/2020 and Crime No.0502020S0009/2020, on the file of the respondent police.

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- This is the 6th bail application filed by the petitioner/third accused, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 07.07.2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B r/w 302, 342, 201, 182, 193, 211, 218 r/w 34 IPC in Crime No.0502020S0008/2020 and Crime No.0502020S0009/2020, on the file of the respondent police.

2. It is evident from the records that the petitioner, who was then working as Sub-Inspector of Police in Sathankulam Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.312 of 2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 188, 269, 294(b), 353 and 506(2) IPC, against two persons viz., Jeyaraj and Benniks, who are father and son respectively, that both the persons were arrested and were produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sathankulam and they were remanded to judicial custody and lodged in Sub Jail, Kovilpatti, that both the persons, who fell ill, were 2/25

admitted in the Government Hospital, Kovilpatti, that the said Jeyaraj and Benniks died on 23.06.2020 and 22.06.2020 respectively, that on the basis of the complaint lodged by the Superintendent of Sub Jail Kovilpatti, two FIRs came to be registered in Crime Nos.649 and 650 of 2020, under Section 176(1A)(i) Cr.P.C., that a team of Doctors, who conducted postmortem, have given their opinion that both the deceased would appear to have died of complications of blunt injuries sustained, that in the meanwhile, this Court has taken suo moto writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.7042 of 2020 and directed the CBCID to conduct the investigation and on the basis of the said direction, two FIRs came to be registered in Crime Nos.

1 and 2 of 2020 and the offences were altered to under Sections 302, 342, 201 r/w 109 IPC, that subsequently, the investigation was transferred to CBI, the respondent herein and two FIRs came to be registered, that after completing the investigation, the CBI has laid a final report against 9 accused including the petitioner herein under Sections 120(B) r/w 302, 342, 201, 182, 193, 211, 218 IPC, r/w 34 IPC and the case was taken on file in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai, that subsequently, the case was committed to the Principal Sessions Court, Madurai and the case was taken on file in S.C.No.470 of 2020, that the case was then made over to I Additional District and Sessions Court, Madurai and that the case is now pending on the file of the said Court.

3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has moved bail applications in Crl.O.P. (MD)Nos.11324 and 11355 of 2020 and the said petitions came to be dismissed on 03.11.2020, that the petitioner has subsequently filed bail applications in Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.14877 and 14878 of 2021 before this Court and the same were also dismissed on 22.03.2021, that the petitioner has thereafter approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.(Crl)Nos.3762 and 3763 of 2021 seeking bail and the said petitions came to be dismissed on 07.09.2021 and that the petitioner has then filed bail applications thrice in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.4980 of 2022, Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6308 of 2023 and lastly in Crl.O.P. (MD)No.15201 of 2023 and the same were ordered to be dismissed vide orders dated 18.05.2022, 14.06.2023 and 08.09.2023 respectively.

4. As already pointed out, the petitioner has moved the sixth bail petition.

5. It is not in dispute that the intervenor Selvarani, who is none other than the wife and mother of the deceased Jeyaraj and Benniks, has filed a writ petition in W.P. (MD)No.3665 of 2021 for issuance of a writ of Mandamus, directing the trial Court to conclude the trial within a time stipulated and this Court, vide order dated 18.03.2021, has directed the learned trial Judge to conduct the trial expeditiously and dispose of the case in S.C.No.470 of 2020 within a period of six months from the date 4/25

of receipt of a copy of that order and that subsequently, at the request made by the learned trial Judge, further period of five months was granted by this Court for the disposal of the said case vide order dated 17.12.2021. The petitioner has approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court challenging the order passed in W.P.(MD)No.3665 of 2021, dated 18.03.2021, directing the trial Court to dispose of the case within six months and the same was ordered to be dismissed, vide order dated 07.09.2021.

6. Before entering into further, it is necessary to refer the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan Alias Pappu Yadav and another reported in (2004) 7 SCC 528, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court has dealt with the consideration of subsequent bail applications and the relevant passages are extracted hereunder:- "20.Before concluding, we must note though an accused has a right to make successive applications for grant of bail the court entertaining such subsequent bail applications has a duty to consider the reasons and grounds on which the earlier bail applications were rejected. In such cases, the court also has a duty to record what are the fresh grounds which persuade it to take a view different from the one taken in the earlier applications. In the impugned order we do not see 5/25

any such fresh ground recorded by the High Court while granting bail. It also failed to take into consideration that at least on four occasions order refusing bail has been affirmed by this Court and subsequently when the High Court did grant bail, this Court by its order dated 26th July, 2000 cancelled the said bail by a reasoned order. From the impugned order, we do not notice any indication of the fact that the High Court took note of the grounds which persuaded this Court to cancel the bail. Such approach of the High Court, in our opinion, is violative of the principle of binding nature of judgments of superior court rendered in a lis between the same parties, and in effect tends to ignore and thereby render ineffective the principles enunciated therein which have a binding character.

21. For the reasons stated above, we are of the considered opinion that the High Court was not justified in granting bail to the first respondent on the ground that he has been in custody for a period of 3 years or that there is no likelihood of the trial being concluded in the near future, without taking into consideration the other factors referred to hereinabove in this judgment of ours."

6/25

7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the entire prosecution case is based on conjunctures and surmises, that the alleged offences, for which, the petitioner has been charged are with false assumptions, without any truth and legal basis in them and that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the above crime and he has nothing to do with any of the offences alleged.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would mainly contend that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 07.07.2020 and has undergone an extended period of incarceration as an undertrial prisoner, that despite the petitioner's prolonged detention, the trial has not been completed, that there are repeated delays in the proceedings due to the reasons beyond the control of the petitioner, that there is no apprehension of the petitioner absconding or tampering with the evidence, as the evidence has been completed and the prosecution has examined most of the crucial witnesses, that the prolonged detention of the petitioner without timely conclusion of the trial amounts to punitive incarceration, which is contrary to the principles of presumption of innocence until proven guilty and that since the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by any strict and stringent conditions to be imposed by this Court, the petitioner may be granted bail. 7/25

9. The learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that in pursuance of the directions of this Court dated 18.03.2021 in W.P.(MD) No.

dismissal of the earlier bail petition, that the post of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai, is vacant and the III Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Madurai, who is having additional charge is now conducting the trial and that therefore, the above petition, which is devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed.

10. The learned counsel appearing for the intervenor would submit that depositions of P.W.8 to P.W.13 and P.W.20 and various exhibits would prove that the petitioner has taken the duo to the police station, foisted a false case against the deceased persons and had active role in the torture and heinous crime, that the evidence of P.W.33 would prove that the petitioner actively involved in disappearing the evidences to hide their serious crime, that the petitioner is powerful and influential to the extent of disrupting fair trial and that since there is no change of circumstances since the dismissal of the earlier bail petition, the present bail petition is liable to be dismissed.

11. The learned counsel appearing for the intervenor would further submit that the petitioner is having another case filed by one Rajasingh, who was also tortured by the police and lodged at Kovilpatti Sub Jail, which was registered as Crime No.323 of 2020 on the file of the Sathankulam Police Station, that State Human Rights 9/25

Commission has taken cognizance of homicidal attack allegedly committed by the petitioner and fourth accused Murugan against Lauser Barnabas of Palaniappapuram Village, Thoothukudi District and 8 persons of Rameswaram and Nallathambi, President of Karungadal Panchayat, that the petitioner is also facing another case, in which, the police officials attached to the Sathankulam Police Station went in search of one Durai and as he was not available, they pulled out his younger brother Mahendran aged about 28 years and started kicking in his private parts and took him into police station and gave third degree treatment and as a result of which, he died within 20 days of the occurrence, that now the investigation is pending before CBCID police and that therefore, it cannot be stated that the petitioner is not having any bad antecedents or similar type of cases.

12. The learned counsel appearing for the intervenor would rely on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar Vs. Ashis Chatterjee and another reported in (2010) 14 SCC 496, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court has listed the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail and the same are extracted hereunder:- "(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and 10/25

gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail."

13. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would rely on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Muslim alias Hussain Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2023) 2 MLJ (Crl) 549 (SC) = 2023 SCC OnLine SC 352 and a decision in Hussainara Khatoon and others Vs. Home Secretary, State of Bihar reported in (1980) 1 SCC 81, which were already relied on the side of the petitioner in the earlier bail petition and the same came to be referred.

14. In Mohd. Muslim alias Hussain's case, the Hon'ble Apex Court has referred its earlier decision in Hussainara Khatoon's case and held that speedy trial is an integral and essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India and also dealt with the question as to what would be the consequence if a person accused of an offence is denied speedy trial and 11/25

is sought to be deprived of his liberty by imprisonment as a result of a long delayed trial in violation of his fundamental right under Article 21.

15. In the case of Abdul Rehman Antulay Etc. Etc. Vs. R.S. Nayak and another etc. etc. reported in (1991) SUPP.3 S.C.R. 325 relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has recognized that right to speedy trial is implicit in Article 21 and it constitutes a fundamental right of every person accused of a crime, that fair, just and reasonable procedure implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution creates a right in the accused to be tried speedily and right to speedy trial is the right of the accused and that right to speedy trial flowing from Article 21 encompasses all the stages, namely, the stage of investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision and re-trial.

16. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would also rely on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 and a decision in Manoranjana Sinh alias Gupta Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2017) 5 SCC 218 and the relevant portions are extracted hereunder:- (i)(2012) 1 SCC 40 12/25

"Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Ss.

(ii)(2017) 5 SCC 218 13/25

"Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment unless it is required to ensure that an accused person would stand his trial when called upon and that the courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and found guilty. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventive. Any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of a conduct whether an accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson.

Since the jurisdiction to grant bail to an accused pending trial or in appeal against conviction is discretionary in nature, it has to be exercised with care and caution by balancing the valuable right of liberty of an individual and the interest of the society in general. The seriousness of the charge, is no doubt one of the relevant considerations while examining the application of bail but it was not only the test or the factor and that grant or denial of such privilege, is regulated to a large extent by the facts and circumstances of each particular case.

prisoners for an indefinite period would amount to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution."

17. In the first decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, by referring to the basic concept of bail jurisprudence that bail is the rule and jail an exception, has observed that each case has to be decided on its own merits. In the second decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court has specifically held that since the jurisdiction to grant bail to an accused pending trial or in appeal against conviction is discretionary in nature, it has to be exercised with care and caution by balancing the valuable right of liberty of an individual and interest of the society in general.

18. In Mohd. Muslim alias Hussain's case referred (supra), wherein, the petitioner therein was charged for the offence under the provisions of NDPS Act and has suffered incarceration for over 7 years and the trial was only halfway through, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, by observing that the grant of bail on the ground of undue delay in trial, cannot said to be fettered by Section 37 of NDPS Act, given the imperative of Section 436A Cr.P.C., which is applicable to the offence under the NDPS Act, granted bail.

19. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would also rely upon a 15/25

decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Balwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another in a petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.8523/2024 dated 09.09.2024, wherein, it was alleged that the petitioner therein had a direct role in shooting of the victim. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, taking note of the facts that the petitioner was in jail from 26.06.2020 and that the prosecution wanted to examine 17 more witnesses, has granted bail.

20. In the case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra and another in Crl.A.No.2787 of 2024 dated 03.07.2024, wherein, the petitioner was found in possession of 1193 numbers of counterfeit Indian currency, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, by considering the facts that the appellant is in jail as an under-trial prisoner for past four years, that the trial Court has not been able to even proceed to frame charge till that time and that the prosecution intends to examine not less than eighty witnesses, has granted bail and the relevant passages are extracted hereunder:- "19 If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime 16/25

committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime.

20 We may hasten to add that the petitioner is still an accused; not a convict. The over-arching postulate of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty cannot be brushed aside lightly, howsoever stringent the penal law may be. 21 We are convinced that the manner in which the prosecuting agency as well as the Court have proceeded, the right of the accused to have a speedy trial could be said to have been infringed thereby violating Article 21 of the Constitution."

21. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would also rely on a recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tapas Kumar Palit Vs. State of Chhattisgarh in Crl.A.No.738 of 2025 dated 14.02.2025, wherein, the petitioner therein was charged under the various provisions of Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 and the relevant passages are extracted hereunder:- 17/25

"6. The trial is in progress. Till this date the prosecution has been able to examine 42 witnesses. The prosecution intends to examine as many as 100 witnesses. We are conscious of the Order passed by us taking the view that once the trial commences and the witnesses are being examined then in serious crimes like murder, dacoity, rape, etc, the Court ordinarily should not exercise its discretion for the purpose of grant of bail, more particularly, looking into the evidence which has come on record.

7. However, this is a case in which the appellant is in custody as an under trial prisoner since 24th March, 2020. He has no other antecedents. The panch witnesses to the recovery panchnama have also turned hostile.

8. It's been now 5 years that he is in judicial custody. The learned counsel appearing for the State has no idea as regards the time likely to be consumed to complete the recording of the oral evidence.

9. In such circumstances, we are left with no other option but to 18/25

order release of the appellant on bail. We do not undermined the seriousness of the crime that has been alleged.

10. However, many times we have made ourselves very clear that howsoever serious a crime may be the accused has a fundamental right of speedy trial as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution."

22. At this juncture, it is necessary to refer the decision relied on by the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent in Rajesh Ranjan Yadav @ Pappu Yadav Vs. CBI through its Director reported in 2007 ALL SCR 753, "Learned counsel for the appellant has repeatedly referred to Article 21 of the Constitution and on that basis has submitted that the appellant should be released on bail particularly since he has already been imprisoned for more than six years.

We are of the opinion that while it is true that Article 21 is of great importance because it enshrines the fundamental right to individual liberty, but at the same time a balance has to be struck between the right to individual liberty and the interest of society. No 19/25

right can be absolute, and reasonable restrictions can be placed on them. While it is true that one of the considerations in deciding whether to grant bail to an accused or not is whether he has been in jail for a long time, the Court has also to take into consideration other facts and circumstances, such as the interest of the society."

23. In the present case, as already pointed out, the petitioner is in judicial custody from 07.07.2020.

24. The learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that the last investigating officer, now testifying as P.W. 52, has undergone chief examination and has been cross-examined by the first accused for three days. The case is presently adjourned, awaiting the continuation of P.W.52's crossexamination by the first accused.

25. At this juncture, it is necessary to refer the proceedings initiated by the petitioner himself which came to be referred by him in the bail petition. a) The petitioner has earlier filed a petition before the trial Court under Section 207 Cr.P.C. seeking copies of the 161(3) Cr.P.C. statements recorded by the CBCID 20/25

before the CBI took over the investigation in Crl.M.P.No.161 of 2021 and after dismissal of the same, the petitioner filed a revision in Crl.R.C.(MD)No.272 of 2021 and the same was partly allowed. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition for discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C. in Crl.M.P.No.165 of 2021 and the same was dismissed. Challenging the said order, he preferred a revision in Crl.R.C.(MD)No.274 of 2021 before this Court and the same was dismissed on 03.09.2021 and challenging the said order, he preferred a petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Crl.)No.8739 of 2021 and the same was also ordered to be dismissed on 03.12.2021. b) The petitioner filed Crl.M.P.Nos.2356 and 2357 of 2024 seeking to recall P.W.36 and P.W.43 and the same were dismissed on 13.09.2024. Challenging the said orders, the petitioner filed petitions in Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.17714 and 17803 of 2024 before this Court and the said petitions came to be dismissed vide order dated 21.10.2024.

26. The learned counsel appearing for the intervenor would submit that the petitioner, without preferring any Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, filed an application in Crl.M.P.No.1 of 2025 seeking the very same relief to recall the witnesses and the same is pending before the trial Court. 21/25

27. In the intervening petition, the defacto complainant has alleged that the first accused, the Inspector of Police at Satankulam Police Station at the time of the incident, filed a petition seeking a separate escort vehicle due to apprehensions of danger to his life from the other accused. According to the intervenor, the first accused alleged that disputes arose between them when he questioned why he was implicated in the brutal murder committed by them, and claimed that the others are planning to eliminate him. The learned counsel appearing for the intervenor would submit that releasing the petitioner, the main accused, would have serious implications, given the first accused's serious allegations. This Court finds some merit in this contention.

28. The learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that each accused is represented by separate counsel, resulting in prolonged cross-examination of witnesses. Specifically, the accused took 26 hearings to crossexamine P.W.50 and 21 hearings to cross-examine P.W.51. While the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would rightly argue that the accused has the right to cross-examine witnesses, it is equally important to note that the accused cannot take advantage of the delay caused by their own actions. 22/25

29. The petitioner does not allege that the prosecution has been unduly delaying the production of witnesses or prolonging the proceedings without justification.

30. Notably, the I Additional District and Sessions Court, Madurai, is currently without a Presiding Officer, and the III Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Madurai, is holding full additional charge. Despite this, the trial court has been conducting witness examinations twice or thrice a week, accommodating the schedules of outstation counsels and witnesses, as acknowledged by counsel on both sides.

31. Although this Court has extended the time limit for completing the trial, considering the facts and circumstances, including the substantial number of hearings consumed by the defence's cross-examination of witnesses, the trial Court's handling of the case cannot be faulted.

32. Given that the last witness, P.W.52, is currently testifying and that there has been no undue delay attributable to the prosecution or the Court in completing the trial, whereas the defence has contributed to the delay, this Court is disinclined to 23/25

grant bail to the petitioner at this late stage in the trial.

33. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel on both sides, the extended time limit granted by this Court expired in February 2025. It is unclear whether the trial Court has submitted a request for further extension. Regardless, this Court directs the trial Court to complete the trial in S.C. No.470 of 2020 and dispose of the case within two months from the date of receipt of this order.

34. With the above direction, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. sd/- 26/03/2025 / TRUE COPY / /04/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar ( C.S. I / II / III / IV ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

CSM TO 1 THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MADURAI.

2 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, MADURAI, MADURAI DISTRICT.

24/25

3 THE ADDITIONAL SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CBI/SCU-V, SC II, NEW DELHI.

4 THE SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR CBI CASES, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.2374 of 2025 Date :26/03/2025 HPS/SAR / 24.04.2025/25P/5C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023.

25/25