BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Sixteenth day of November Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH CRL OP(MD) No.14676 of 2011 MALUSAMY @ MAHESWARAN ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.6 Vs THE STATE REP BY ITS THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE USILAMPATTI POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT CRIME NO. 440/2011 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. R.SEVUGA RAJA Advocate For Respondent : Mr.C.RAMESH ,Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.6 and he prayed for grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C., for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 120(B) and 302 I.P.C. in Crime No.440 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police. 2.Heard Mr.R.Sevuga Raja, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.C.Ramesh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Criminal Side) appearing for the State. 3.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit in his argument that the petitioner has been arrayed as sixth accused in this case and the petitioner is a coolie worker and is eking his livelihood. He would further submit in his argument that this Court has granted bail to the third and fourth accused. He would also submit in his argument that this petitioner is also shown to be one of the accused like that of the other accused persons, who are granted bail by this Court. He was in judicial custody from 26.07.2011 and therefore bail may be considered. 4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit in his argument that there is no overt act as against the accused Nos.3 and 4 for causing the death of the deceased and therefore, they were granted bail by this Court. As far as this petitioner is concerned, he attacked with knife in the abdomen of the deceased and therefore, he has got specific overt act and he has not come under the similar footing like that of A3 and A4. Hence, he would request the Court to dismiss the petition. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5.Considering the submission made on both sides, this Court came to the conclusion that this Court carefully looked into the matter and they are not having any specific overt act causing the death of the deceased and therefore, this Court has granted bail to the accused Nos.3 and 4, on 19.10.2011 and 21.10.2011, in Criminal O.P(MD)Nos.13603 and 14015 of 2011 respectively. As far as this petitioner is concerned, it has been vehemently opposed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the petitioner has got specific overt act by attacking the deceased in the abdomen with knofe and caused serious injuries, which resulted the death of the deceased. 6.In view of the above, I could not find any similarity in footing like that of the accused Nos.3 and 4. Hence, I do not find any reason to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. sd/- 16/11/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1.THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI 2.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE USILAMPATTI POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT 3.THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, MADURAI rl/4c – 22.11.2011 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.14676 of 2011 Date :16/11/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/