Muthukrishnan v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date :02.02.2023 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice G.ILANGOVAN CRL OP(MD). Nos.2098 and 2099 of 2023

1. Muthukrishnan

2. Satheesraja ... Petitioner / Accused Nos.7 & 8 Vs State, represented by, The Inspector of Police, Thalaiyuthu Police Station, Tirunelveli District.

(Crime No.227 of 2021).

... Respondent / Complainant For Petitioner : Mr. T.Lenin Kumar Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Nambiselvan.B Additional Public Prosecutor CRL OP(MD). No.2099 of 2023 Athisayam @ Athisayapandiyan ... Petitioner/Accused No.9 Vs State, represented by, The Inspector of Police, Thalaiyuthu Police Station, Tirunelveli District.

(Crime No.227 of 2021).

... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr. S.Maya Perumal Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Nambiselvan.B Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C.

COMMON PRAYER :- C-33B. For Bail in Crime No. 227 of 2021 on the file of the respondent Police.

1/3

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners in Crl.O.P(MD) No.2098 of 2022, who were arrested on 19.07.2021 for the alleged offence under Sections 147, 148 and 302 of Ipc @ 147, 148, 302, 120(b), 506(ii), 109, 34, 212, 114 and 149 of IPC, in Crime No.227 of 2021, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks bail.

2. The petitioner in Crl.O.P(MD) No.2099 of 2022, who was arrested on 30.07.2021 for the alleged offence under Sections 147, 148, 302, 120(b), 506(ii), 109, 34, 212, 114 and 149 of IPC, in Crime No.227 of 2021, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks bail.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners in both cases would submit that this is the third bail application that has been filed by the petitioners on the ground that the earlier direction in Crl.O.P(MD) No.16426 of 2022 dated 13.09.2022 passed by this Court to complete the trial process within a period of six months, but that was not complied by the trial Court.

3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that because of non-appearance of A13, the case was split up against A13 on 01.02.2023.

4. The learned counsel for the defacto complainant would submit that so far the charges have not been framed but also submitted that because of the non-appearance of the accused persons one after another, even charge could not be framed. So, automatically, the trial process also hampered.

5. Since the order of split up the case has been passed against A13, the trial Court is directed to complete the trial process within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Hence, I find no reason to entertain this petition at this stage.

6. In view of the above, these Criminal Original Petitions are dismissed.

sd/- 02/02/2023 / TRUE COPY / /03/2023 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

INDU 2/3

TO

1. The Inspector of Police, Thalaiyuthu Police Station, Tirunelveli District.

2.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Palayamkottai.

3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Vellure.

4. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

+1. CC to M/S.S.MAYAPERUMAL Advocate SR.No.1781

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.2098 & 2099 of 2023 Date :02/02/2023 ED/RR/SAR 4(09.03.2023) 3P 6C 3/3