Chinnathambi @ Esakkiraja v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Sixteenth day of June Two Thousand Sixteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice V.M.VELUMANI CRL OP(MD) No.8964 of 2016 and 8965 of 2016 1 CHINNATHAMBI @ ESAKKIRAJA 2 SUBBRAJ ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.14 & 16 IN CRL.OP(MD)NO.8964 OF 2016 MUTHUMANO ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.II IN CRL.OP(MD)NO.8965 OF 2016 STATE REB.BY Vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE AUTHOR POLICE STATION, TUTICORIN DISTRICT, C R NO. 84 OF 2016. ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S P.BANUPRASATH Advocate For Respondent : M/S.P.KANNITHEVANGovt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C.
ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners, who are arrayed as accused 14 and 16 and 11, in Crime No.84 of 2016 on the file of the respondent police, were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 18.03.2016 and 16.03.2016 respectively for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 147,148,149,120(b),109,302 and 201 of IPC and Section 3 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and hence, seek bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused persons conspired together and assembled unlawfully and threw the Bombs and murdered the deceased. On complaint, a case has been registered against the accused persons.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that petitioners name is not found place in First Information Report and the petitioners names have been been falsely implicated in this case.
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that it is a double murder case and due to that there is a communal clash at Thoothukudi District. He further submitted that already coaccused 13 and 20 enlarged on bail, but, still today they are not complying the condition and hence, the respondent Police is filing a petition to cancel the bail. In the circumstances, if the petitioners are enlarged on bail they will abscond and tamper the evidence and hamper investigation and prayed for dismissal of this petition.
5. Considering the serious nature of allegations levelled against the petitioners and that the co-accused have already been enlarged on bail and they are not complying the condition and are absconding, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail.
6. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. sd/- 16/06/2016 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTSRATE, TIRUCHENDUR, THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT. 2 DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT. 3 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, PALAYAMKOTTAI. 4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE AUTHOR POLICE STATION, TUTICORIN DISTRICT, 5 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
+1. CC to M/S P.BANUPRASATH Advocate SR.No.30904
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.8964 of 2016 AND 8965 OF 2016 Date :16/06/2016 SDR/AAL-MPA/SAR II/23.06.2016/2P/7C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/