SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Mad) 2798

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
K. MURALI SHANKAR, J.
Ragu Ganesh – Appellant
Versus
State represented by Additional Superintendent of Police, New Delhi & Another – Respondents
CRL OP (MD). No. 15201 of 2023
Decided On : 08-09-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:K.A. Raama Krishnan, Advocate. For the Respondents: C. Muthu Saravanan, Special Public Prosecutor. For the Intervenor:V. Rajiv Rufus, Advocate.

The delay in trial, the seriousness of the offences alleged, and the objections raised by the prosecution and intervenor were key factors in denying bail to the petitioner.

Headnote:

Bail - Criminal Procedure - IPC - [Bail] - [Criminal Procedure] - [Sections 342, 201, 193, 211, 218, 302, 109 IPC] - The court discussed the repeated bail applications filed by the petitioner, the progress of the trial, and the examination of witnesses. The court considered the delay in trial, the seriousness of the offences alleged, and the objections raised by the prosecution and intervenor in denying bail to the petitioner.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a former Sub-Inspector of Police, filed multiple bail applications after being arrested for various offences under the IPC. The trial involved the deaths of two individuals and the subsequent investigation by the CBI.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner's repeated bail applications, delay in trial, and objections raised by the prosecution and intervenor were not sufficient grounds to grant bail.

Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner should be granted bail considering the delay in trial, the seriousness of the offences alleged, and the objections raised by the prosecution and intervenor.

Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the delay in trial, the seriousness of the offences alleged, and the objections raised by the prosecution and intervenor in denying bail to the petitioner.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the Criminal Original Petition, denying bail to the petitioner.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: For Bail in S.C.No.470 of 2020 on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Court, Madurai, in Crime No.RC0502020S008/2020 and Crime No. RC0502020S009/2020 on the file of the respondent police.)

1. The Court made the following order :- This is the 5th bail application filed by the petitioner/A.3, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 01.07.2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 342, 201, 193, 211, 218, 302 and 109 IPC in Crime No.RC0502020S008/2020 and Crime No.RC0502020S009/2020, on the file of the respondent police.

2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner, who was then working as Sub- Inspector of Police in Sathankulam Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.312 of 2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 188, 269, 294(b), 353 and 506(2) IPC, against two persons viz., Jeyaraj and Benniks, who are father and son respectively, that both the persons were arrested and were produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sathankulam and they were remanded to judicial custody and lodged in Sub Jail, Kovilpatti, that both the persons, who fell ill, were admitted in the Government Hospital, Kovilpatti, that the said Jeyaraj and Benniks died on 23.06.2020 and 22.06.2020 respectively, that on the basis of the complaint lodged by the Superintendent of Sub Jail Kovilpatti, two FIRs came to be registered in Crime Nos.649 and 650 of 2020, under Section 176(1A)(i) Cr.P.C., that a team of Doctors, who conducted postmortem, have given their opinion that both the deceased would appear to have died of complications of blunt injuries sustained, that in the meanwhile, this Court has taken suo moto writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.7042 of 2020 and directed the CBCID to conduct the investigation and on the basis of the said direction, two FIRs came to be registered in Crime Nos.1 and 2 of 2020 and the offences were altered to under Sections 302, 342, 201 r/w 109 IPC, that subsequently, the investigation was transferred to CBI, the respondent herein and two FIRs came to be registered, that after completing the investigation, the CBI has laid a final report against 9 accused including the petitioner herein under Sections 120(B) r/w 302, 342, 201, 182, 193, 211, 218 IPC, r/w 34 IPC and the case was taken on file in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai, that subsequently, the case was committed to the Principal Sessions Court, Madurai and the case was taken on file in S.C.No.470 of 2020, that the case was then made over to I Additional District and Sessions Court, Madurai and that the case is now pending on the file of the said Court.

3. It is evident from the records that the petitioner has moved bail applications in Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.11324 and 11355 of 2020 and the same were ordered to be dismissed on 03.11.2020, that the petitioner subsequently moved bail applications in Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.14877 and 14878 of 2021 before this Court and the same were also ordered to be dismissed on 22.03.2021, that the petitioner has then approached the Hon''ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.(Crl)Nos.3762 and 3763 of 2021 seeking bail and the same were also dismissed on 07.09.2021, that the petitioner has then filed another application for bail before the trial Court in Crl.M.P.No.3 of 2022 and the same was dismissed on 15.02.2022 and that thereafter he moved another bail application before this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.4980 of 2022 and the same was also ordered to be dismissed on 18.05.2022. The petitioner has then moved a bail application in Crl.M.P.No.13 of 2023 before the trial Court and the same was ordered to be dismissed on 28.02.2023 and then the petitioner has filed another bail application before this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6308 of 2023 and the same was ordered to be dismissed on 14.06.2023 and that thereafter the above petition came to be filed before this Court seeking bail.

4. It is also not in dispute that the intervenor Selvarani who is none other than the wife and mother of the deceased

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top