Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 23063
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Hon`ble Mr.Justice B.PUGALENDHI
Mathin Alias Mohammed Matheen – Appellant
Versus
The Inspector of Police – Respondent
Anticipatory bail can be denied if substantial evidence implicates an accused in serious offenses, notwithstanding their physical absence from the crime scene.
Headnote:
Bail - Anticipatory Bail - IPC Section List - The case discusses the criteria for granting anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code in relation to the charges under Section 302 IPC. It highlights the need for sufficient evidence connecting the accused to the crime and the implications of the accused's role.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Second Accused in a murder case, sought anticipatory bail after being implicated in the death of the deceased, a person with outstanding dues to the petitioner’s business. Enmity between the petitioner and the deceased was cited as motive for the crime.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed evidence, including witness statements and communication records, finding significant connections between the petitioner and the offenses. The lack of his presence at the crime scene did not absolve him of responsibility given the management role over the first accused.
Issues: Whether anticipated bail could be granted to the petitioner involved in a murder case where there exists substantial evidence linking him to the crime despite not being physically present at the crime scene.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that mere absence from the crime scene does not negate involvement when there is evidence of instigation or managerial control over actions leading to the crime.
Final Decision: The application for anticipatory bail was dismissed.
ORDER
The petitioner is the second accused in Crime No.39 of 2024 on the file of the respondent Police, which has been registered for the offence u/s.302, 109 IPC. The prosecution case is that the defacto complainant is the wife of the deceased and the deceased is said to have some outstanding dues in the departmental store owned by the petitioner. On 15.03.2024, the deceased went to the Medicals owned by the petitioner to purchase some medicines. The sister of the first accused, Rahmath Jabin, refused to give medicines and asked the deceased to settle the outstanding dues. The first accused, who is the Manager of the petitioner, also demanded to settle the outstanding dues and there was a wordy quarrel between the deceased and the first accused. On this motive, on 16.03.2024, at the instigation of this petitioner, the first accused dashed the deceased with an Innova Car bearing Reg.No.TN-72-AR-0066 and flew away from the scene of occurrence. Out of the injuries, the deceased died in the spot. On the complaint lodged by the defacto complainant, the case has been registered.
2.Admittedly, the petitioner was not present in the scene of occurrence, however, he has been added as an accused. Therefore, apprehending arrest, the petitioner has moved this application seeking anticipatory bail.
3.Considering the rival submissions made and in order to ascertain the role of this petitioner in the commission of offence, as on date, this Court, by order dated 10.04.2024, granted an order of interim anticipatory bail enabling the petitioner to appear before the respondent Police and to co-operate for the investigation. Accordingly, the petitioner appeared before the respondent Police on 13.04.2024 and the investigation officer, based on the available materials, has filed a report.
4.In the report, the investigation officer has stated that the petitioner /
second accused is the President of Sunnath Jamath, Puthantharuvai and he is also running a Trust in the name of Thameera and is running Hospital, Fertilizer Shop, Departmental Store and several other shops in the name of Thameera and that the first accused has been administering the various business run by the second accused for the last 4 years. The father of the first accused is working in Thameera Fertilizer and the sister of the first accused Rahmath Jabin is working in Thameera Hospital.
5.The investigation officer has further stated that the deceased was a member of the Sunnath Jamath and that he frequently asked the second accused to submit the accounts of the Jamath and as such, there was previous enmity between the deceased and the second accused. Under these circumstances, the deceased went to Thameera Hospital and asked for medicine on loan basis. The first accused's sister demanded settlement of amount due to the Departmental Store and the deceased responded that he had already settled the same. In this regard, there was a wordy quarrel. On 15.03.2024 at about 08.00 pm, the first accused went to the house of the deceased and threatened his wife / defacto complainant with dire consequences. On 16.03.2024 at about 04.30 pm, he again picked up quarrel with the deceased, while he was on his way to his business and the first accused attempted to attack the deceased with stones. On being shouted by the other witnesses, he left the spot taking a vow to murder the victim. Since there was enmity between the deceased and the second accused in connection with the affairs of the Jamath, at the instigation of the second accused, the first accused on 16.03.2024 at about 08.00 pm, while the deceased was off-loading the goods from his two wheeler, with an intention to murder, drove the Innova Car bearing Reg.No.TN-72-AR-0066, belonging to the second accused, in a rash manner and forcibly hit the deceased. The deceased died on the spot.
6.According to the investigation officer, the defacto complainant and eye witness to the occurrence has given a statement regarding the occurrence and the prior enmi
