Vijay v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Eighteenth day of July Two Thousand Seventeen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice A.M.BASHEER AHAMED CRL OP(MD) Nos.9049 & 9057 of 2017 VIJAY ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED NO.36 IN CRL OP(MD) No.9049 of 2017 1 NAGENDRAPRASAD @ NAGENDRA PRAKASH 2 PARTHEEBAN ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED NO.29&35 IN CRL OP(MD) No.9057 of 2017 Vs THE STATE REP.BY, THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE UCHIPULI POLICE STATION, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT CRIMENO. 161 OF 2017 ... RESPONDENT /COMPLAINANT IN BOTH PETITIONS For Petitioner : M/S.D.BALAMURUGAPANDI Advocate IN CRL OP(MD) No.9049 of 2017 For Petitioners : M/S.R.JEGADEESWARAN Advocate IN CRL OP(MD) No.9057 of 2017 For Respondent : MR.A.RAMAR Additional Public Prosecutor IN BOTH PETITIONS PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C.
ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 02.06.2017 and 21.06.2017 respectively, for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341, 324, 307, 302 and 506(ii) of IPC., in Crime No.161 of 2017, on the file of the respondent Police, seek bail. A36 is the petitioner in Crl.O.P(MD)No.9049 of 2017, and A29 & 35 are the petitioners respectively in in Crl.O.P (MD)No.9057 of 2017.
2. The case of the prosecution is that there was a dispute between two communities in conducting the festival and the accused said to have attacked the deceased with deadly weapons and caused death of Nagarajau. One Lakshmanan was sustained injuries. The overt act as against A36 is that during the occurrence, he said to have informing the movement of the deceased to the other accused and A29 and A35 herein are said to have closed the mouth of the injured during the occurrence.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners states that the name of the petitioners herein are not found in the FIR and as per the confession of A1, who was released on bail and latter on detained under Goondas Act, the petitioners' name were implicated in this case and they are innocent and they are no way connected with the offence and they never participated in the heinous crime.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent, on instructions, would submit that FIR was registered against 7 named accused and 32 others and the petitioners in Crl.O.P (MD)No.9049 of 2017 is arrayed as A36 and the petitioners in Crl.O.P (MD)No.9057 of 2017 are arrayed as A29 and A35 respectively. He would further submit that there was a dispute between two communities in conducting the festival and the accused said to have attacked the deceased with deadly weapons and caused death of Nagarajau. One Lakshmanan was sustained injuries and he was discharged from the hospital. The specific overt act as against A36 is that he said to have informing the movement of the deceased to the other accused and A29 and A35 herein are said to have closed the mouth of the injured during the occurrence. A36 was arrested on 02.06.2017 and he is in custody; A29 and A35 were arrested and they are in custody from 21.06.2017 onwards and the other accused are still absconding and the investigation is still pending.
Continuing further he would submit that the petitioners herein are implicated in this case, as per the confession of A1, who was arrested and subsequently released on bail by the concerned Sessions Court and before executing the sureties, he was detained under the Goondas Act. A2, A5, A6 and A6 were arrested and in custody; A10 was granted bail by the concerned Sessions Court; A23 and A26 were granted anticipatory bail by this Court, as per order in Crl.O.P(MD) No.7987 of 2017 and in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8278 of 2017 respectively dated 28.06.2017 & 30.06.2017.
5. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the petitioners are implicated as per the confession of A1 in this case, who was released on bail by the concerned Sessions Court and the injured has been discharged from the hospital, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioners subject to certain conditions.
6. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their each executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District and on further condition that:
[a] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders, for interrogation. [b] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.
[c] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial and the petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation by the respondent police.
[d] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law, as if the conditions
have been imposed and the petitioner 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/- 18/07/2017 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.II, RAMANATHAPURAM, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT.
2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT. 3 OFFICER IN CHARGE, SUB JAIL, RAMANATHAPURAM.
4 OFFICER IN CHARGE, DISTRICT PRISON, RAMANATHAPURAM.
5 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, UCHIPULI POLICE STATION, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT.
6 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
+1. CC to M/S.D.BALAMURUGAPANDI Advocate SR.No.26724 +1. CC to M/S.R.JEGADEESWARAN Advocate SR.No.26734
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) Nos.9049 & 9057 of 2017 Date :18/07/2017 MKV-PM-SAR 2/18.7.2017/3P-9C