1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT (Criminal Jurisdiction) Friday, the Fourth day of November Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice S.NAGAMUTHU CRL OP(MD) No.13848 of 2011 R. BALAJI :PETITIONER / ACCUSED-1 -Vs- THE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THOGOOR POLICE STATION, THANJAVUR DISTRICT. CR NO. 98/2011 :RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. N.SANKAR GANESH Advocate For Respondent : MR.K.S.DURAIPANDIAN, ADDL. PUBLC PROSECUTOR. PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.439 Cr.P.C. ORDER:The Court Made the following order:- The petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.98 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. The petitioner was arrested on 23.08.2011. He seeks bail. 2.According to the case of prosecution, altogether there are three accused. The accused Nos.1 and 2 are the brothers. Third accused is the brother-in-law of the first accused. The petitioner/first accuse had illicit intimacy with one Ajitha. When the deceased came to know about the same, it is alleged that he threatened the petitioner stating to inform the same to the husband of the said Ajitha. Enraged over the same, it is alleged that the petitioner along with other accused committed murder of the deceased. The body was elsewhere thrown. On seeing the body the local Village Administrative Officer gave a complaint and based on the same, the present case has been registered. Now, weapon has been recovered from the first accused. These are the allegations made against the petitioner. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would deny the above allegations.He would point out that there is no eyewitness to the occurrence and the entire case is based upon the recovery of the weapon alleged to have been made from the first accused. He would further submit that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the past 73 days and the investigation would have made substantial progress. In view of the above, he prayed for bail. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4.I have considered the above submissions. 5.As already pointed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that there is no eyewitness to the occurrence and the entire case is based upon the circumstantial evidence. By this time, the investigation would have made substantial progress. The occurrence was on 04.08.2011 and the petitioner was arrested on 23.08.2011. 6.Going by the nature of allegation made and the petitioner has been in prison for the past 73 days and the investigation would have made substantial progress, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, but with stringent conditions. 7.In the result, this petition is ordered and bail is granted to the petitioner on the following conditions: - (i)The Petitioner shall be enlarged on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with two sureties each for a likesum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvaiyaru, Thanjavur District; and (ii)the Petitioner shall remain at Dindigul and report before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dindigul, everyday at 10.30 a.m. until further orders. sd/- 04/11/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO: 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvaiyaru. 2.-Do- Thro'The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thanjavur @ Kumbakonam 3.The Judicial Magistrate No:I, Dindigul. 4.-Do- Thro'The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul. 5.The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,Madurai. 6.The Inspector of Police, Thogoor Police Station, Thanjavur District. 7.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Trichy. +1. CC to M/S. N.SANKAR GANESH Advocate SR.No.38048. RP/04.11.2011/2P/9C. ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.13848/11 Date :04/11/2011. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/