1979 Supreme(Mad) 235
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.A. Sathar Sayeed, J.
Pandian .....Appellant(s)
Versus
State, represented by the Inspector of Police, Ramanathapuram .....Respondent(s)
Crl.M P. No. 2672 of 1979.
Decided On : 18 May 1979
T.S. Arunachalam, for Petitioner.
M. Karpagavinayakam, Government Advocate No. III (Crl. Side), for State.
Conditional bail granted to the accused suffering from epilepsy.
Headnote:Code of Criminal Procedure, 1979-Section 439-Application for bail filed by the accused in remand on the ground of suffering from epilepsy-Conditional bail granted.
2. The convention of the petitioner is, that he is an Army Officer who has retired in the year 1968 and has good character. The petitioner is also the owner of the land at Mudukulathur and he is very much respected in his village and he possesses licence for his arms. The petitioner was charged, as stated above under the aforesaid sections by the respondent and the case of the prosecution is that on 13th March, 1978 complaint was lodged by Kumarayee stating that one Valivittan and the petitioner wrongfully restrained and attempted to outrage her modesty. A case was registered under section 341 and 354, Indian Penal Code in Crime No. 214 of 1978. While investigating the said crime, it appears that the police party apprehended Valivittan and during this apprehension they saw the petitioner also who threatened the respondent with a revolver, and therefore, they left the place. Subsequently on the same day at about 8.15 p.m., the Inspector of Police accompanied by the Sub-Inspector of Police went to Malachakulam in a taxi TMC 9352 to apprehend to the accused. It is the further case of the prosecution that when the police went to the place, they found the accused lying in a cot and. while he was being arrested, it is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner took out his revolver which was underneath the pillow and shot at the Inspector, but actually the Sub-Inspector Mr. Richard fell down. Seeing the petitioner having a revolver, it is the case of the prosecution that the police party ran away. The petitioner, it is not denied by the prosecution, has taken Mr. Richard, who was wounded, to the Mudukulathur hospital in the same taxi in which the police had come. Subsequently the petitioner was arrested at 10.00 p.m., and since then, he is under detention. According to the petitioner, the entire case of prosecution is false and baseless and he is innocent and has not committed the offence as alleged. According to him, on the date of the offence as alleged by the prosecution, he had a undergone an operation for a carboncle and was resting in his house.
3. In the counter filed by the Deputy Inspector of Police, it is contended by the prosecution that four cases against the petitioner are pending and the prosecution strenuously opposes the release of the petitioner on bail. The contention of the prosecution is that the petitioner is an Ex-Military man and has several friends in various countries such as Ceylon, Malayasia and Singapore and if the petitioner is released, the prosecution apprehends that the petitioner will abscond or will go away to other countries without the knowledge of the police and the Government. The prosecution further contends that if the petitioner is released, he would cause danger to the life of the other police officers also and, therefore, objects to the release of the petitioner on bail. The prosecution further contends that a charge-sheet in this case has been filed and the cases have been committed to sessions and all the cases against the petitioner, as per the order of this Court, have been transferred to the jurisdiction of the Tirunelveli Sessions Court and the trial is posted to 21st June, 1979, and, therefore, contends that the petitioner should not be released on bail pending disposal of the cases.
4. The question for consideration is whether the petitioner has to be released on bail pending disposal of the case more particularly S.C.No. 42 of 1979 on the file of the Sessions Court, Tirunelveli. It is not disputed by the prosecution that the petitioner was arrested and is in remand from 13th September, 1978. It is also not disputed by the prosecution that the petitioner is a retired officer of the Army and his children are well educated and one of his sons is an Advocate. It i