Syed Sulaiman Sait v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Eighteenth day of April Two Thousand Sixteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice G.CHOCKALINGAM CRL OP(MD) No.6285 of 2016 SYED SULAIMAN SAIT ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 Vs STATE REP.THROUGH THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE C5, KARIMEDU POLICE STATION, MADURAI.

CRIME NO.859/2015 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S S.M.A JINNAH Advocate For Respondent : M/S.KANNITHEVAN, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C.

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner is arrayed as first accused and he was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 21.12.2015 for the alleged offences punishable under Section 3 of Explosive Substance Act, 1908 and Section 3 of TNPPDL Act in Crime No.859 of 2015 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seeks bail.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that in this case, charge sheet has been filed and taken on file as P.R.C.No.1 of 2016 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Madurai. Further, the learned counsel would contend that the petitioner is ready to execute sufficient sureties as directed by this Court and he undertakes that the petitioner will not tamper any of the witnesses and the accused has been in judicial custody from 21.12.2015 and he prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

3. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State would submit that the present petitioner is involved in so many cases including under Sections 307 and 302 IPC and in four cases, the petitioner was granted bail. Further, the learned Additional Advocate General would submit that in this case, if the petitioner is released on bail he will tamper and hamper the witnesses.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. On a perusal of the records, it is seen that the petitioner was granted bail in four cases, but he has not been granted bail in this case alone. Further, in this case, the learned counsel for the petitioner produced copies of the bail order made in Crl.M.P.No.416 of 2016 on the file of I Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai, and in Crl.O.P(MD)No.2034 of 2016 on the file of this Court and in Crl.M.P.No.1174 of 2016 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Court, Madurai. A reading of the above said orders, it is clearly mentioned that the entire allegations are made against the present petitioner.

5. The objection of the learned Additional Advocate General cannot be rejected. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail at this stage. Hence, this petition is dismissed.

sd/- 18/04/2016 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,C5, KARIMEDU POLICE STATION, MADURAI. 2 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECTUOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

3 THE SUPERINTENDENT, PALAYAMKOTTAI CENTRAL PRISON, TIRUNELVELI. SKN CSL/AAL-MPA/SAR-I/22.04.2016 : 2P/4C

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.6285 of 2016 Date :18/04/2016 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/