BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Fourteenth day of September Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice R.MALA CRL OP(MD) No.11752 of 2011 MUTHU ... PETITIONER(S) / ACCUSED Vs STATE REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRUCHENDHUR POLICE STATION, TUTICORIN DISTRICT CRIME NO.273/2011 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.N. KARTHIK KANNA Advocate For Respondent : GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE (CRL.SIDE) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner is arrayed as an accused and he was arrested on 14.06.2011 for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 302 I.P.C. and Sections 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act 1988, in Crime No.273 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police hence, seeks bail. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the alleged occurrence has been taken place on 14.06.2011, while the defacto complainant parking the vehicle for filling petrol at Petrol Bunk, a wordy quarrel has been arose between the deceased and petitioner and consequently, the petitioner thrown an iron rod and run over on the deceased and th petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence. He would further submit that the case of the petitioner is that while he filling the petrol, the defacto complainant and the deceased created problem with the petitioner under the influence of the liquor and they attempted attack the petitioner and the petitioner was attempted to escape from the complainant and the deceased with his vehicle by then, the deceased under the influence of the liquor, waylaid the petitioner's vehicle and succumbed injuries. He would further submit that he petitioner was arrested on 14.06.2011 and he is inside for nearly 90 days and the investigation is considerably over and hence, he prays for enlargement on bail. 3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the occurrence has not taken place as sudden provocation and the petitioner was assaulted the deceased and then only, he run over the vehicle and died subsequently. He would further submit that the investigation is going on and his name is find place in the first information report and if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he will tamper the witnesses and abscond from the jurisdiction and hence, he prays for dismissal of this application. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. I have considered the rival submissions made on either and perused the materials available on record. 5. Perusal of the case diary would show that the alleged occurrence has been taken place on 14.06.2011 at 15.10 hours and the case has been registered on the same day at 17.00 hours and the complainant is one Kumar and the deceased is one Pachairajan aged about 40 years and the accused name is find place in the first information report. Further perusal of the F.I.R. Would show that there is no previous enmity between the deceased and the petitioner. While, the defacto complainant filling the petrol, the petitioner asked the deceased to move his vehicle, for which, the deceased told that he can move his vehicle, for which, the deceased told that he can move his vehicle after filling the petrol and thereafter, a wordy quarrel has been arisen and he assaulted the deceased on his head with an iron rod and he fell down and the vehicle was run over the deceased and he died. This would show that the occurrence has been taken place for a trivial reason and there is no previous enmity. 6. Perusal of the post mortem certificate would show that the deceased has sustained external and internal injuries and 25 x 20 cm tyre mark seen over the middle of the anterior aspect left side of the chest wall. Considering the fact and circumstances of the case and since the occurrence has been taken place for a trivial reason and considering the nature of the injuries and the investigation is considerably over, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with certain conditions. 7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on executing a separate bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Principal District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchendur and on further condition that the petitioner shall report before the Court concerned daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders. Sd/- 14/09/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1.THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT MUNSIF CUM JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THIRUCHENDUR 2.THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTATE, TUTICORIN 3.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRUCHENDHUR POLICE STATION, TUTICORIN DT. 4.THE ADDL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI 5.THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, PALAYAMKOTTAI +1. CC to M/S.RAGAVENTHREE Advocate SR.No.31435 ssk/15.09.2011 /7c -2p/- ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.11752 of 2011 Date :14/09/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/