Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. VAIDYANATHAN, J.
The State, rep. by The Inspector of Police – Petitioner
Vs.
Ravi @ Kadhu Kuthu Ravi – Respondent
Crl.O.P. No.13574 of 2013
Decided On : 14.08.2015
Bail Cancellation - Criminal Law - IPC Sections 341, 147, 148, 427, 302 - The court discussed the gravity of the offenses alleged, the accused's criminal history, and the potential impact on the investigation and witnesses. The court considered the accused's physical condition and previous acquittals in similar cases. The court also referred to legal principles governing bail cancellation and the scope of review of bail orders.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to cancel the bail granted to the respondent, who was accused of murder and other offenses. The prosecution argued that the respondent's release could hamper the investigation and witness testimony. The respondent contended that the bail was granted based on his physical condition and lack of evidence of misconduct.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that while there were discrepancies in the bail order, the absence of evidence of tampering or misconduct by the accused did not warrant bail cancellation. The court also noted the time elapsed since the alleged offense and the pending trial.
Issues: The key issues were the potential impact of the accused's release on the investigation and witnesses, the relevance of the accused's physical condition, and the scope of review for bail orders.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the absence of evidence of tampering or misconduct by the accused did not warrant bail cancellation. The court also emphasized the time elapsed since the alleged offense and the pending trial as factors in its decision.
Final Decision: The petition to cancel the bail was dismissed.
This petition has been filed to cancel the bail granted to the respondent/A1 by the learned Sessions Judge, Chennai in C.M.P.No.5819 of 2013 dated 15.5.2013.
2. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for State and learned counsel appearing for respondent.
3. The facts of the case are as follows;
(i) The complaint was lodged by one Prabhakaran alleging that on 21.3.2013, while he along with his brother Kathiravan and driver Karthik were proceeding in a car, at about 7.45 a.m., the accused persons intercepted them in two cars and they caught hold of Kathiravan and murdered him with deadly weapons . It was further alleged that one Madurai sundar of deceased Chinna's gang might have murdered Kathirvan due to previous enmity in respect of real estate business.
(ii) On the complaint of Prabhakaran, who is brother of deceased Kathiravan, a case in Crime No.573 of 2013 has been registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 147, 148, 427 and 302 of IPC. Subsequently A1 to A8 were arrested and remanded to judicial custody. During interrogation, they gave confession statements disclosing about the involvement of Ravi @ Kadhukuthu Ravi, the respondent herein in the above said crime.
(iii) On 31.3.2013, the respondent herein surrendered before the petitioner and his confession statement was recorded and after producing him before concerned Magistrate Court, he was remanded to judicial custody. During interrogation of the respondent, he gave a further statement about the modus operandi and the vehicles and weapons used for murdering the deceased Kathiravan.
(iv) The respondent herein, by moving bail application before the learned Sessions Court, Chennai and obtained bail in C.M.P.No.5819 of 2013 on 15.5.2013 on condition that he should report before the petitioner daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of one month.
4. Against the order passed in C.M.P.No.5819 of 2013 by the learned Sessions Judge, Chennai, this petition for cancellation of bail has been preferred on behalf of the prosecution.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor, Mr. S. Shanmugavelayudham appearing for the State submitted that the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is perverse and he has not taken into the gravity of the offlence alleged to have been committed by the respondent. The respondent is involved in many other cases and there is prima facie materials as against the accused. In the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, in paragraph 4, it was stated that totally there are 24 accused involved and out of 24 accused 7 accused were already released on bail and the petitioner was implicated on the basis of confession given by co-accused and he is no way connected with the offence and he is a close friend of the deceased and some amount was recovered form the mother of the deceased for not disclosing the name of this accused is not disclosed in the complaint and the respondent/accused was a handicapped and he cannot took any arms to attack the deceased. He further submitted that the above said statement is not correct.
6. He further contended that the accused paid money to the mother of the deceased for not disclosing the offence. The occurrence has taken place at the instance of the accused persons. The main overt act attributed against the accused is that he paid money to the mother of the deceased to conceal the fact of murder. He is also involved in 20 previous cases , out of which 19 cases were ended in acquittal, thus it is seen that this accused is such an influential and powerful person and no case can be proved against him as the witnesses were tampered and hence they will not support the case of prosecution. The only one case which is pending against the accused is before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur in P.R.C.No.13 of 2012 for the offence under Sections 302, 147, 148, 341 , 120(b) r/w.149, 201 and 213 of IPC and in that case, now charge sheet has been filed and the case is ripen for trial. He further submitted that in the p
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
