The court emphasized the importance of justice and wider implications in cases involving heinous crimes, and highlighted the responsibility of the police in eradicating custodial deaths and ensuring efficient public administration.

ORDER :

(Prayer : C-6B. For a Bail in Connection with the Case in Nos. RC 050 2020 S 0008 and RC 050 2020 S 0009 respectively on the file of Additional Superintendent of Police, CBI SC II.

The Court made the following order :-

The petitioner is arrayed as Accused No.1. He surrendered before the CBCID Police at Tuticorin on 02.07.2020 for the offences punishable under sections 342, 302, 201 r/w 109 of IPC, in Case Nos. RC 050 2020 S 0008 and RC 050 2020 S 0009 respectively. The petitions on hand are filed seeking bail.

2. The petitioner is the first accused and was holding the post of Inspector of Police and now under suspension. The case was registered on account of the custodial death of two persons namely Mr.P.Jeyaraj and Mr.J.Benniks.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that the petitioner underwent surgery during the year 2013 and he is suffering from severe back pain. The petitioner/A1 fully co-operated for the investigation and he was holding the post of Inspector of Police and therefore, he may be released on bail and he is ready to abide by any conditions if any imposed by this Court. It is contended that the petitioner/A1 was not connected with the offence and he was the Station House Officer and his involvement was not established even during the investigation. Thus, the petitioner/A1 is having a fair chance of success in the criminal trial and there is no prima facie case against the petitioner and thus, the petitioner is to be released on bail.

4. The learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of the respondent CBI strenuously objected the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner by stating that it is a case of the custodial death and two deceased persons were tortured in an inhuman manner and they died subsequently. No doubt, the final report is already filed. However, the larger investigations to cull out the truth surrounded by the incidents are under investigations. In view of the fact that the death of two business men in that locality created an impact in the society at large and more specifically at the national level. The case was initially handed over to the CBI by the Government and the CBI is in the progress of investigation in order to cull out the involvement of the other police officials and other persons. Though the final report has been filed before the Competent Court of law, investigations are still in progress. The learned counsel for the respondent, at the request of this Court, obtained instructions from the officials of the CBI regarding co-operation extended by the petitioner during investigation. On instructions, the learned counsel for the respondent reiterated that the petitioner/A1 had not co-operated for the fair investigation. He created lot of obstructions during the course of investigation. He made an attempt to flee at the initial stage. However, the said point is objected by the learned counsel for the petitioner by stating that the petitioner himself surrendered. These facts are disputed and this Court need not offer any findings in this regard and the said factors are to be tried before the Competent Court of law. The learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the respondent further contended that in the event of enlarging this petitioner on bail, the same would create many issues in the matter of continuing the investigation on the larger involvement of the police officials and therefore, the petition is to be dismissed.

5. The learned counsel for the victim/defacto complainant contended that he has already filed a petition to intervene. Two deceaseds were brutally attacked and tortured throughout the night in the custody of the police and more specifically in Sathankulam police station. The some other officials are the eye witnesses in the case and they are to be protected by this Court. The petitioner/A1 was holding the post of Inspector of Police and he is an influential person. The witnesses were the subordinates w