BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Twenty Second day of November Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH CRL OP(MD) No.14850 of 2011 JEGANIVASAN ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.1 Vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DEVAKOTTAI TALUK POLICE STATION, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT, CRIME NO.1/2011 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. T.VADIVELAN Advocate For Respondent : K.S.DURAIPANDIAN, Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner is arrayed as A1 and he was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 03.1.2011 by the respondent police in Crime No.1 of 2011 for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 302 and 376 r/w.34 IPC. He has come forward with this petition seeking bail. 2. Heard Mr.T.V.Adivelan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.K.S.Duraipandian, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the state. 3. The report has been called for from the learned Sessions Judge, Sivagangai. But it has been informed from the Registry that there is yet another direction of this Court and the said Judge has asked for further time for the disposal of the case as directed by this Court on an earlier occasion in Crl.OP(MD)No.8602 of 2011 and two months time has been granted, which would expire by 31st December 2011. 4. According to the submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor the enquiry regarding the juvenility of the second accused as well as the trial are pending before the learned Sessions Judge and the said Court has complied with the orders and the trial itself will be over within two months and therefore, there is no need for granting any bail and if any grant of bail to the petitioner, there is a possibility of absconding from the jurisdiction of law and hence, he requested this Court for completion of trial within the said period already directed by this Court and necessary orders may be passed in this regard. 5. Considering the submissions made by both sides, I could see that the argument that both the accused were found lastly prior to the incident could be considered only by the trial court and there is no necessity for this court to go into the said defence taken by the accused at this stage, when the trial court has seized the matter. Apart from that whether there is any standing of Kaili or not and regarding the other material objects recovered in the case should have also been considered, only by the trial court. As far as this case is concerned this court on an earlier occasion had given a clear finding that there is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ a possibility of absconding by the petitioner in the event of grant of bail and however, this court has directed the trial court to complete the trial within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. While conducting the trial the trial court has also undertaken the enquiry regarding the juvenility of the second accused as per the orders passed by this court in Crl.OP(MD)No.13566 of 2011. Now the said trial court could not complete the trial within the said span of time and therefore, the learned sessions Judge, Sivagangai asked for extension of time and this court has also granted two months time, which, would expire by 31st December 2011. 6. In such circumstances there is no necessity for deviating from the earlier orders passed by this Court, But this Court is not reiterating the directions issued by this Court to complete the trial within the months of December 2011 without asking for any further time. The trial Court is also directed to proceed with the trial either with the second accused, in case he is found to be not a juvenile or against the first accused alone in case the second accused is found juvenile and to complete the trial and pronounce the judgment within the aforesaid period. 7. With the aforesaid directions this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. sd/- 22/11/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DEVAKOTTAI TALUK POLICE STATION, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT. 2. THE OFFICER IN CHARGE, JUVENILE HOME, THANJAVUR 3. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. 4. THE SESSIONS JUDGE, SIVAGANGAI GH : 28.11.2011 : 2P/4C ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.14850 of 2011 Date :22/11/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/