IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, J.
Vasoor Raja @ Thulasi Govindarajan - Appellant
Versus
Assistant Commissioner of Police, Annadhanapatti, Salem & Others – Respondents
Crl.A. No. 421 of 2022
Decided On : 07-07-2022
Bail - Criminal Appeal - The court allowed the criminal appeal and granted bail to the appellant based on the consideration that the majority of the previous cases against the appellant were old and in recent cases, his name was not directly mentioned in the FIR or he was not present at the scene of occurrence. The court also noted that the evidence against the appellant was based on the statement of the wife of the deceased, without any other material to point out the actual overt act as alleged. The appellant was ordered to be released on bail with specific conditions.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed a criminal appeal against the dismissal of his bail application. The prosecution opposed the bail on the grounds of the appellant's history of repeated offences and 26 previous cases.
Finding of the Court:
The court considered the appellant's previous cases and found that the majority were old, and in recent cases, his involvement was not clearly established. The evidence against the appellant was based on the statement of the deceased's wife without any other material to support the alleged overt act. The court granted bail to the appellant with specific conditions.
Issues: Bail application dismissal, appellant's criminal history, evidence against the appellant
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the age and relevance of the appellant's previous cases, the lack of clear evidence supporting the alleged overt act, and the fact that other accused in similar situations had been granted bail.
Final Decision: The Criminal Appeal was allowed, and the appellant was granted bail with specific conditions.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 14(A) of SC/ST Act, 2015 against the bail dismissal order passed in Crl.M.P.No.4891 of 2021 in Crime No.1182 of 2020 in Spl.S.C.No.6 of 2021, dated 14.12.2021 by the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Salem and seeks bail and to set aside the order.)
1. This appeal is filed against the order of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Salem, dated 14.12.2021 in Crl.M.P.No.4891 of 2021, in and by which, the prayer for bail by the appellant was dismissed. The appellant is arrayed as accused No.18 in the case.
2. The learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant is not at all involved in the instant offence. In this case, already the investigation is completed and the chargesheet is filed and the matter is pending in Spl. S.C.No.6 of 2021. On a perusal of the chargesheet filed, it is seen that even the eye witnesses have not attributed any overt act in respect of the appellant. The only statement made is that the appellant also took part in the conspiracy to kill the deceased person.
3. The learned Counsel would submit that in this case, all the accused have been released on bail and including other accused, who are similarly situated with number of previous antecedents, namely accused No.16, Jayasuriya @ Surya, was also granted for bail against whom also, 21 cases were pending. Therefore, he would submit that the appellant is under incarceration from 22.02.2021 onwards i.e., more than one year and therefore, prays for bail.
4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that the appellant is a history sheeter. Inspite of repeatedly granting bail, he, time and again, indulged in repeated offences and totally 26 cases are there to his credit. Therefore, on this sole ground, the bail should not be granted to him. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would also submit that in this case, the co-accused have clearly confessed and the appellant was also present in the scene of occurrence and prevented the deceased from escaping from the scene of offence.]
5. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and upon the submission made by the prosecution that the appellant has got 26 previous cases, this Court directed the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) to submit a list of previous cases. Upon perusal of the said list, it is seen that the majority of the cases are old cases and in the recent cases, either the appellant's name is not directly mentioned in the F.I.R nor he is present in the scene of occurrence. Therefore, this Court takes into consideration of the same. Further, on a perusal of the records, the evidence, as against the accused is concerned, is the evidence of P.W.1, the wife of the deceased, who has stated that he also conspired to kill the deceased. Apart from the above, there is no other material to point out the actual overt act as alleged in this case. Therefore, considering the fact that the appellant is in prison from 22.02.2021 and all the other accused, who are all similarly placed as that of the appellant having been granted bail, I am of the view that the appellant is also entitled to be enlarged on bail. It is made clear that the observations supra which are made for the purpose of granting of bail, and will not have any bearing whatsoever during the course of trial.
6. Therefore, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the appellant is enlarged on bail on the following conditions:-
(b) the appellant and the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impressions in the surety bonds and the learned Judge may obtain a copy of their Aadhar Cards or Bank Pass books to ensure their identities;
(c) the appellant shall appear before the Trial Court everyday at 10.30 A.M until the di
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.