V.Raju v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 16/10/2020 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

1. V.Raju

2. S.Periyamathish

...Petitioners/Accused No.2 & 4

Vs State Rep.by The Inspector of Police, Kadayanallur Police Station, Tenkasi District.

Crime No.382 of 2020 ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioners : M/s.C.Saravana Kumar, Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.439 of Cr.P.C.

PRAYER :- For Bail in Crime No.382 of 2020 on the file of the Respondent Police.

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners/A2 and A4, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 11.08.2020 and 12.08.2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 341,294(b),342,324,302 and 506 (ii)of IPC on the file of the respondent police seeks bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that on 30.07.2020 when the deceased along with his relatives were returning home A1 and A2 came to the place of occurrence in their two wheeler and waylaid the deceased. When the deceased and other relatives got down from the car A1 and A2 started quarrel and attacked the deceased. Thereafter two other persons also came to the place of occurrence and attacked the deceased and he sustained injuries. Immediately he was taken to Government Hospital, Tirunelveli where he was declared dead. Further is is alleged that the first accused fell in the love with the daughter of the deceased and after negotiation with elders the 1/3

defacto complainant refused to marry her daughter to the first accused. Thereafter the first accused along with his friends namely A2 to A4 decided to do away the life of the deceased and attacked him with deadly weapons and caused his death. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the petition in respect of second petitioner. He would submit that there are four accused in this case , in which the petitioner is arrayed as A2 and his name does not found place in the First Information Report. He would also submit that no specific overt act has been attributed against the petitioner. He would also submit that A4 in this case was granted by this Court and the petitioner is in jail for nearly 60 days, hence he may be granted bail.

4. The learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) would submit that the first accused fell in love with the daughter of the deceased and thereafter panchayat was held in which the defacto complainant refused to marry his daughter to the first accused, due to which there was a quarrel between the first accused and the deceased family. While being so, on 30.07.2020 when the deceased along with his relatives proceeded to his house they were waylaid by the accused persons and attacked with deadly weapons. He would also submit that specific overt act has been attributed against him. He would also submit that investigation is yet to be completed and the waiting for chemical analysis report.

5. It is seen there are two named and two unnamed accused in this case and the petitioner herein is arrayed as A2. Admittedly, the first accused fell in love with the daughter of the deceased and thereafter panchayat was held in which the defacto complainant refused to marry his daughter to the first accused, due to which there was a quarrel between the first accused and the deceased family. While being so on 30.07.2020 when the deceased along with his relatives proceeded to his house they were waylaid by the accused persons and attacked with deadly weapons. The petitioner voluntarily surrendered before the respondent police. It is also stated that co-accsued in this case was granted bail by this Court.

6. Taking note of the above facts and circumstances of the case and also taking into consideration the period of incarceration, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the first petitioner subject to the following conditions:

7.Accordingly, the first petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two blood sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tenkasi i) the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate/concerned court may 2/3

obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank Pass Book to ensure their identity ii) the first petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m and 5.30 pm., until further orders. iii)the first petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness.

iv) the first petitioner shall not abscond during trial. v)On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the first petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the first 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].

vi) If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.

8. As regards the second petitioner, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

sd/- 16/10/2020 / TRUE COPY / / /2020 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

TO

1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, TENKASI.

2. DO-THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT.

3. THE OFFICER INCHARGE,SUB JAIL, TENKASI.

4. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KADAYANALLUR POLICE STATION, TENKASI DISTRICT.

5. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.11723 of 2020 Date :16/10/2020 MS/PN/SAR-3/16.10.2020/3P.6C 3/3