CRL OP(MD)/17993/2017 of RAVIKUMAR, Vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, on 28 December 2017

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT( Criminal Jurisdiction )

Thursday, the Twenty Eighth day of December Two Thousand Seventeen PRESENT

The Hon`ble Mr Justice S.VAIDYANATHAN

CRL OP(MD) No.17993 of 2017

RAVIKUMAR

... PETITIONER/2[nd] ACCUSED

Vs

THE STATE REP. BYTHE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MUSIRI POLICE STATION, TRICHY DISTRICT. (CRIME NO.415 OF 2017)... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

For Petitioner : Mr.VEERA KATHIRAVAN, Senior Counsel for VEERA ASSOCIATES.

For Respondent : Mr.K.ANBARASAN, Government Advocate (Crl.side)

PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C.

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner/A2, who was arrested on 17.12.2017 andremanded to judicial custody on the same day for the offencespunishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304(ii) IPC in Crime No.415of 2017 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner isthe owner of a school vehicle and the driver of the said vehicledrove the same in a rash and negligent manner, thereby met with anaccident, causing the death of three children and the daughter ofthe defacto complainant sustained grievous injuries, which resultedin registration of the present case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submittedthat the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case, as he,being a owner, is not responsible for the said occurrence and he isready to abide by any conditions being imposed by this Court.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) has stronglyobjected to the grant of bail, contending that the investigation ofthe case is at the initial stage and if the petitioner/accused ishttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/let out on bail, there is every possibility of the accused tamperingthe witnesses/evidences and hampering the investigation.

5. Taking into consideration the serious nature of theallegations levelled against this petitioner; that the submission ofthe learned counsel for the petitioner that the driver of thevehicle caused such an accident, in which, the petitioner has norole to play, cannot be accepted; that the defacto complainant was aparty before the Lower Court and has not been purposely added inthis petition and also the fact that the investigation of the caseis in progress, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief asprayed for by the petitioner.

6. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition standsdismissed accordingly. It is made clear that in the event of thepetitioner filing yet another bail petition, he has to implead thedefacto complainant as party to the petition and further orders willbe passed thereon only after notice to the defacto complainant.

sd/-

28/12/2017

/ TRUE COPY /

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO

1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,MUSIRI POLICE STATION, TRICHY DISTRICT.

2 THE SUPERINTENDENTCENTRAL PRISON, TRICHYCENTRAL PRISON, TRICHY

3 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI