CRL OP/27083/2017 of MAHESH @ MAHESHKUMAR, M/A 30 Y Vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE on 28 December 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS( Criminal Jurisdiction )

Thursday, the Twenty Eighth day of December Two Thousand SeventeenPRESENT

The Hon`ble Mr Justice R.PONGIAPPAN

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.27083 of 2017

1 MAHESH @ MAHESHKUMAR, [ PETITIONERS / ACCUSED ]2 VENKATAJALAPATHI @ PATHI, 3 SURESH @ KEMPAN, 4 HARISH, 5 SURESH, 6 RAJKUMAR,

Vs

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE [ RESPONDENT ]DENKANIKOTTAI POLICE STATION, KRISHNAGIRI, KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT. CR.NO.468/2017.

For Petitioner : MR.PRABAKARAN, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR M/S.R.SAGADEVAN Advocate For Respondent : MR. R.SEKAR, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side)

PETITION FOR BAIL 439 Cr.P.C.

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- Heard both sides.

2. The petitioners 1 to 6 are arrayed as accused 1 to 6 in CrimeNo.468 of 2017 and were arrested and remanded to Judicial Custody forthe alleged offences under Sections 147,148,364,302 of IPC on thefile of the respondent police.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on 23.10.2017 at 8:00 hrsthe deceased went to Denkanikottai Court along with his friends byCar and at 13:30 hours the defacto complainant received a call fromhis brother stated that he came to know through his villager that herhusband was kidnapped from Denkanikottai Court by A1 to A5 andmurdered him. A6 has driven the car along with A1 to A5 & A7 andkidnapped the deceased in the said Car and thereafter A1 to A5colluded with each other murdered the deceased.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submittedthat these petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. Thelearned counsel relied upon decisions reported in and prayed for granting bail to the petitioners herein.

5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) filed counter andreiterated the submissions stated in the counter.

6. Considering the submissions made by either side, it appearsthat the offence under Sections 147,148,364,302 of IPC has beenregistered against these petitioners. The first, second, third,fourth and fifth petitioners are now in Judicial custody from26.10.2017. The sixth petitioner was arrested and remanded injudicial custody from 30.10.2017. Accordingly all the petitioners arein judicial custody for the past 60 days. While going through theparticulars the learned Government Advocate submitted that theinvestigation has not been completed and stated that the firstpetitioner in this case is having two previous case, the secondpetitioner is having six previous case, the third petitioner ishaving six previous case. The remaining accused are having only oneprevious case each. On this ground the learned Government Advocateagitated this petition. But considering the period of detentioncustodial interrogation is not necessary for completing theinvestigation. However, considering the previous antecedents of thefirst, second and third petitioners this Court is not inclined togrant bail at this stage. Therefore this Criminal Original Petitionis dismissed as against petitioners 1 to 3. However, considering theperiod of detention, the fourth, fifth and sixth petitioners arehaving only one previous case each and this Court is inclined togrant bail.

7. Taking all the above said aspects into consideration, havingregard to the period of detention, this Court is of the view that the custodialinterrogation of the petitioners are not necessary and therefore,this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioners 4 to 6subject to the following conditions:-

(i) The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail on his executinga bond for Rs.10,000/- each with two sureties for a like sum each tothe satisfaction of District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court,Denkanikottai.

(ii) The petitioners 4 to 6 shall report before the respondent /police daily at 10.00 a.m. for a period of one month and thereafter,as and when required for interrogation.

(iii) On the failure of the petitioner to comply with conditionsregularly, bail granted to him shall stand cancelled automaticallyand the petition is allowed accordingly.

(iv) The petitioners 4 to 6 shall not tamper the evidence or witnesseither during investigation or trial.

(v) The petitioners 4 to 6 shall not abscond either duringinvestigation or trial.

(vi) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learnedMagistrate / Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate actionagainst the petitioners 4 to 6 in accordance with law as if theconditions have been imposed and the petitioners 4 to 6 released onbail by the learned Magistrate / Trial Court himself as laid down bythe Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji Vs State of Kerala [(2005) AIRSCW 5560].

-sd/- 28/12/2017

This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carriedinto execution by all concerned TRUE COPY Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104.

TO

1 THE DISTRICT MUNSIF CUMJUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DENKANIKOTTAI.

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATEKRISHNAGIRI. [FOR INFORMATION]

3 THE SUPERINTENDENT,CENTRAL PRISON, SALEM.

4 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTORHIGH COURT, MADRAS.

5 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICEDENKANIKOTTAI POLICE STATION, KRISHNAGIRI, KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT, CC to M/S.R.SAGADEVAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.27083/2017

Date :28/12/2017ths : 28.12.2017