Saronraj @ Nagaraj v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 02.04.2024 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice B.PUGALENDHI Saronraj @ Nagaraj ... Petitioner/Accused No.1

Versus

State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Dindigul Town South Police Station, Dindigul.

(in Crime No.269 of 2016)

...Respondent/Complainant

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Manikandan Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.439 of Cr.P.C.

PRAYER :- For Bail in S.C.No.132 of 2022 on the file of the Respondent Police. 1/4

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The respondent police registered a case as against this petitioner in Crime No.269 of 2016 for the offence under Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 302 IPC altered into 342, 323, 506(ii), 302 r/w. 34 IPC. In this case, a charge sheet has been filed and the case was committed to the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dindigul, in S.C.No.132 of 2022. Since the petitioner did not not appear before the Court for hearing, NBW was issued against the petitioner. In the meantime, the petitioner was arrested in connection with the other case in Crime No.353/2021 by the Palani Adivaram Police on 16.06.2023 and through PT warrant, he was arrested in this case on 21.06.2023. Therefore, he has filed this petition seeking bail.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. However, he is languishing in Jail from 21.06.2023. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail.

3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent submits that the petitioner was absconding for a period of four years and therefore, the trial was split up as against the petitioner. He further submits that one of the 2/4

witnesses in this case was murdered by another accused. Therefore, he strongly opposes for grant of bail to the petitioner.

4. Considering the nature of allegations levelled against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

5. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

6. It is reported that the case is ripe for trial.

7. The trial Court shall ensure that all the eye witnesses are examined within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is at liberty to renew his application after the examination of all the eye witnesses. sd/- 02/04/2024 / TRUE COPY / /04/2024 Sub-Assistant Registrar (CS -I/ II / III / IV ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

ogy 3/4

TO

1. The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dindigul.

2. The Officer in charge, District Jail, Dindigul.

3.The Inspector of Police, Dindigul Town South Police Station, Dindigul.

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

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.4390 of 2024 Date :02/04/2024 RK/GS (05/04/2024) 4P / 5C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 4/4