BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
K. MURALI SHANKAR, J.
Marimuthu - Appellant
Versus
The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli & Others - Respondents
Crl. A. (MD)No. 229 of 2023
Decided On : 24-03-2023
Criminal Appeal - Bail Order - The court allowed the Criminal Appeal and set aside the order denying bail to the appellant, ordering the appellant's release on bail with specific conditions.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was implicated in a case involving the death of an individual due to previous enmity. The appellant was not present at the time of occurrence and was implicated based on conspiracy.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant had no previous cases for similar or serious offenses and had been in custody since the incident. Considering these factors, the court allowed the Criminal Appeal and ordered the appellant's release on bail.
Issues: Implication of the appellant based on conspiracy, objections raised to grant bail to the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the lack of previous cases for similar or serious offenses and the appellant's custody since the incident as grounds for allowing the Criminal Appeal and granting bail.
Final Decision: The Criminal Appeal was allowed, and the order denying bail to the appellant was set aside. The appellant was ordered to be released on bail with specific conditions.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 14-A(2) of SC/ST Act, to set aside the order dated 29.11.2022 made in Cr.M.P.No.2663 of 2022 on the file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District and enlarge the appellant on bail in Crime No.228 of 2022 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Thatchanallur Police Station.)
1. This Criminal Appeal is directed against the order passed in Cr.M.P.No.2663 of 2022, dated 29.11.2022 by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.
2. The case of the prosecution is that due to some previous enmity between the appellant and the third respondent/defacto complainant, on 06.08.2022, when the defacto complainant along with his son Petchairaja and his elder son Sivakumar and one Sudalaikumar were proceeding to Malapalayam, Kurichi for construction work, at about 09.20 am, when they are crossing Sai Baba Temple near Bye-pass road bridge one accused came in motorcycle and dashed Petchiraja''s two wheeler and the other accused also attacked the said Petchiraja with deadly weapons and caused injuries. Subsequently, the said Petchiraja succumbed to the injuries on the spot itself. Hence, the second respondent registered a case against the accused including the appellant, in Crime No.228 of 2022 for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 302 and 506(2) IPC and Sections 3(l)(r), 3(l)(s) and 3(1)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that appellant name does not find place in the FIR; that only on the basis of the confession alleged to have been taken from the first accused, the appellant was implicated as eighth accused. He would further submit that the appellant was not present at the time of occurrence and only on the basis of conspiracy, he was implicated.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the State would submit that the appellant is not having any previous cases. He would further submit that the investigation has already been completed and the charge sheet has already been laid and the case was taken on file in S.C. No.132 of 2022 pending on the file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Tirunelveli,
5. The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent has raised objections to grant bail to the appellant.
6. Considering the above facts and circumstances and also the facts that the appellant is in custody from 10.08.2022 and that the appellant is not having any previous cases for similar offence or serious offence, this Court is inclined to allow the Criminal Appeal by setting aside the order, dated 29.11.2022 made in Crl.M.P.No.2663 of 2022 on the file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Tirunelveli.
7. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the order, dated 29.11.2022 made in Crl.M.P.No.2663 of 2022 on the file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Tirunelveli, is set aside. The appellant is ordered to be released on bail on their executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Tirunelveli, and on further conditions that:
[a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the learned Sessions Judge may obtain a copy of their valid identity card to ensure their identity.
[b] the appellant shall appear before the concerned Court on all working days at 10.30 a.m., until further orders.
[c] the appellant shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.
[d] the appellant shall co-operate with the investigation.
[e] On breach of any of the aforesaid
The court considered the lack of previous cases for similar or serious offenses and the appellant's custody since the incident as grounds for allowing the Criminal Appeal and granting bail.
The court considered the lack of previous cases for similar or serious offenses and the appellant's custody since August 24, 2022 as grounds for allowing the Criminal Appeal and granting bail.
The decision to grant bail was based on the appellants' custody period, lack of previous similar or serious offences, and objections raised to granting bail.
The court has the discretion to grant bail based on the circumstances and duration of custody.
The court's decision to grant bail under the SC/ST (POA) Act was influenced by the circumstances of the case, including the previous enmity between the parties and the discharge of the injured.
The key legal principle established in the judgment is that the decision to grant bail should consider the presence of the accused at the scene of occurrence, the actions taken in similar cases, and ....
The completion of investigation, period of incarceration, and the bail granted to co-accused are relevant factors in considering the grant of bail under the SC/ST Act and IPC.
The court has the discretion to grant bail based on the circumstances of the case, including the period of custody and the nature of the allegations.
The court considered the period of incarceration and the absence of a presiding officer in the Special Court as factors in granting bail to the appellant.
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.