← Library
Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/12914/2017allowed

D.Suganthi v. The Assistant Commissioner

2017-12-08Honourable Mr Justice S.S. Sundar3 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08.12.2017

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR CRL.O.P.(MD)No.12914 of 2017 1.D.Suganthi 2.T.Sundaramoorthy 3.D.Mohanraj @ Mohan 4.T.Illayarasan ... Petitioners/Accused -Vs1. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Palakarai, Trichy.

2. The Inspector of Police, Kottai Police Station, Trichy, Trichy District.

3.Chandrakumar ... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to direct the learned I Additional District Judge (Special Court for PCR cases), Trichy to accept the surrender of these petitioners in connection with Crime No.721 of 2017 pending on the file of the 2nd respondent and to pass order on the same day in their bail applications on merits. For Petitioners : Mr.J.William Christopher For R1 and R2 : Mr.K.S.Durai Pandian Additional Public Prosecutor For R3 : Mr.R.Venkatesan ***

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed for issuing a direction to the learned I Additional District Judge (Special Court for PCR cases), Trichy to accept the surrender of the petitioners in connection with Crime No.721 of 2017 pending on the

file of the second respondent and to pass order on the same day in their bail application on merits.

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners states that the case was registered against the petitioners / accused and 18 others for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 341, 147, 148, 302, 149, 120(b), 109, 34 of I.P.C. r/w Sections 3(1)(r) (s), 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Amendment Act altered into 341, 147, 148, 302 I.P.C. r/w Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3 (2)(V) of SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Amendment Act. 3.The major offence against the petitioners and others are under Section 302 I.P.C. From the nature of offence committed as per the complaint and statements which has now been obtained from the witnesses clearly indicate that the accused have committed major crimes with the involvement of several persons.

Two persons were being murdered and specific allegation is also made against the petitioners in the First Information Report. 4.The learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that the de facto complainant had stated in his statement under Section 161 (b) (3) of Cr.P.C. that the petitioners 1 to 3 herein are not seen in the scene of occurrence and that his statement at the time of FIR is wrong. Based on the statement given by the third respondent / de-facto complaint, it was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are not involved and that therefore, it is a fit case in which the petitioners should be released on bail and the petitioners plea may be directed to be considered.

It is to be noted that the statement obtained from the third respondent / de-facto complaint clearly speaks about the participation of all the petitioners and their definite role in the commission of crime. As regards, the fourth petitioner, it is submitted that the statements obtained from the third respondent / de-facto complainant his name is not mentioned. As admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the presence of the fourth petitioner is admitted even by the petitioners / accused in the statement furnished by them. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioners are in custody for more than 35 days in connection with another Crime No.1320 of 2017, which was falsely filed against petitioners who are the prime witnesses in the murder of the accused / first petitioner's husband.

5.The contention of the petitioners that the petitioners have been falsely implicated with ill-motive cannot be presumed as against the statement of other witnesses. The petitioners 2, 3 and 4 are present in the scene of occurrence and their involvement is spoken to by the other accused in this statement that are available as on date. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the first petitioner is working as a school teacher and that she has been falsely implicated in this case because she

is the wife of the deceased Panjabikesan, who was murdered earlier in the presence of first accused and that the criminal case is pending. Hence, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners can be considered only in the case of first petitioner. Hence, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed insofar as the first petitioner is concerned and the same is dismissed as against the other petitioners. The first petitioner is directed to surrender before the learned I Additional District Judge (Special Court for PCR cases), Trichy, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on such surrender, the learned I Additional District Judge (Special Court for PCR cases), Trichy, is directed to consider the bail petition filed by the first petitioner in connection with Crime No.721 of 2017, on merits and in accordance with law on the same day.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-II) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To

1. The Ist Additional District Judge, (Special Court for PCR Cases), Trichy.

2. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Palakarai, Trichy.

3. The Inspector of Police, Kottai Police Station, Trichy, Trichy District.

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

+ 1 cc TO Mr.R.Venkatesan , Advocate in SR No. 91986 IA AE/KK/SAR1/03.01.2018/3P/6C CRL.O.P.(MD)No.12914 of 2017 08.12.2017