Sadam Hussain v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Eighteenth day of January Two Thousand Eighteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice R.PONGIAPPAN CRL OP(MD) No.466 of 2018 1 SADAM HUSSAIN 2 UMAR @ UMAR MUKTHAR 3 KAKKA SURESH @ SURESHKUMAR ... PETITIONERS / A3, A6 & A8 Vs THE STATE REP.BY, THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE MADUKKUR POLICE STATION, THANJAVUR DISTRICT.
(CR. NO.239/2017) ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT N.SAHUL HAMEED ... INTERVENE PETITIONER/ DEFACTO COMPLAINANT For Petitioners: M/S.D.RAMESHKUMAR Advocate For Respondent : MR.K.SUYAMBULINGA BHARATHI Govt. Advocate(Crl.Side) For Intervenor : M/S.C.EZHILARASU Advocate PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C.
ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners/A3, A6 and A8, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 08.11.2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 324 and 302 of IPC, in Crime No.239 of 2017, on the file of the respondent police, seek bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that due to previous enmity, A1 and other accused formed an unlawful assembly and assaulted the deceased with deadly weapons and subsequently, the deceased was died. Hence, the present case has been registered for the above said offences.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that except the first petitioner, the name of the second and third petitioners are not mentioned in the first information report. Subsequently, based on the confession of A1, these petitioners were falsely roped in this case. The petitioners are in custody for 70 days.
4. The learned counsel for the intervenor submitted that the accused Nos.4 and 5 in this case using kanja in front of the Pallivasal, at that time one Tarik questioned the same and due to that motive, they attacked the said Tarik and subsequently he died. Thereafter, a case was registered in Crime No.310 of 2013 against the accused persons. He further submitted that the intervenor is the direct eyewitness of the said case. Therefore, if the petitioners/accused in this case are released on bail, the intervening petitioner have a life threat from them. Hence, he prays for dismissal of this petition.
5. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondent on instructions, would submit that totally there are 8 accused in this case. The petitioners are A3, A6 and A8. Out of these accused, A8 was detained under Act 14 of 1982 and the other two accused have two previous cases. He further submitted that the investigation is still pending.
6. The submissions made by the learned counsel on either side are considered. The petitioners are remanded to judicial custody on 08.11.2017 According to the intervenor, the alleged offence was happened, in order to take vengeance against the deceased. But these petitioners are not added as accused in the above said case mentioned by the intervenor. So, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the intervenor is not substantiated with relevant proof. However, the third petitioner, who is A8 in this case was already detained under Act 14 of 1982. Therefore, in respect of A8, this Court is not inclined to grant bail. Hence, this petition in respect of the third petitioner/A8 is dismissed.
7. However, in respect of the first and second petitioners/A3 and A6, considering the period of incarceration, further custody is not necessary for completing the investigation. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioners 1 and 2 in this petition. Accordingly, the petitioners 1 and 2 are ordered to be released on bail, subject to the following conditions:
(i) the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) each, with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pattukottai;
(ii) the petitioners 1 and 2 shall report before the Tirunelveli Town Police Station, daily at 10.00 a.m., until further orders;
(iii) the petitioners 1 and 2 shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;
(iv) the petitioners 1 and 2 shall not commit any offence while on bail;
(iv) the petitioners1 and 2 shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;
(v) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate / Trial Court is entitled to
take appropriate action against the petitioners 1 and 2 in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners 1 and 2 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].
sd/- 18/01/2018 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, PATTUKOTTAI.
2 DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THANJAVUR DISTRICT AT KUMBAKONAM.
3 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI.
4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MADUKKUR POLICE STATION, THANJAVUR DISTRICT.
5 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
+1. CC to M/S.D.RAMESHKUMAR Advocate SR.No.896
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.466 of 2018 Date :18/01/2018 MKV-PM-PN-SAR 1/18.1.2018/3P-7C