(Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 439(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, to cancel the bail granted by order dated 08.05.2019 in Crl.O.P.No.8288 of 2019 for Murthy-A2 the 1st respondent herein, in S.C.No.2 of 2019, on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur, Tiruppur District, to ensure fair trial.)

1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the defacto complainant to cancel the bail granted in favour of the petitioner by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.8288 of 2019, by order dated 08.05.2019.

2. There are totally four accused persons in this case and the petitioner has been ranked as A2 (wrongly mentioned as A3 in the order).

3. The case in brief of the prosecution is that the deceased was kidnapped by the accused persons and ransom was demanded from the defacto complainant. Thereafter, the deceased was attacked by the accused persons and his body was thrown into Kelavarappalli Dam.

4. The bail petition was moved before the vacation Court. At that point of time, it was informed to the Court that the investigation has been completed and the case is pending at the stage of trial. The gravity of the offence and the nature of accusation was not projected before the Court. This Court was also not informed about the dismissal of the bail petition filed by A1, A3 and A4. Therefore, this Court proceeded to consider the bail petition of A2 by applying the rudimentary principles, by taking into consideration the length of incarceration that has already been suffered by the accused person and the stage of the proceedings before the trial Court.

5. Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the defacto complainant submitted that all the accused persons had conspired and kidnapped the husband of the defacto complainant in a car. He was beaten mercilessly and he was murdered in the most grotesque manner and the body was thrown into the dam at Kelavarappalli. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the family members of the deceased found it difficult even to identify the deceased and they were shocked at the manner, in which the entire crime has taken place. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the co-accused namely A1, A3 and A4 had filed bail applications before this Court and this Court, by a detailed order dated 11.12.2018 had dismissed the bail petitions after taking into consideration the nature of accusation and the impact this incident will have on the society at large. The learned counsel therefore submitted that these vital facts were not brought to the notice of this Court, while considering the bail petition and it has been intentionally suppressed.

6. The learned Senior counsel also relied upon the judgment of Anil Kumar Yadav Vs. The State (NCT of Delhi) reported in 2018 12 SCC page 129, wherein the Supreme Court has given guidelines to be kept in mind at the time of considering a bail petition. One of the main guideline that was given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court was that the Court must taken into consideration, the nature of accusation and the impact that the release of the accused person makes on the prosecution, witness and the society at large.

7. The learned Senior Counsel concluded the arguments by submitting that supervening circumstances were available even on the date of which, the bail petition was considered by this Court and since the same has not been taken note by this Court, the bail granted to the accused person has to be cancelled.

8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent submitted that this Court had taken into consideration, the fact that the investigation was completed and the case was at the stage of trial and the first respondent had already suffered incarceration for nearly a year.

9. The learned counsel submitted that merely because the bail petition filed by the co-accused has been dismissed, that cannot be put against the first respondent and the same is not a ground for cance