BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Sixteenth day of December Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH CRL OP(MD) No.16478 of 2011 JEYAPANDI ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 Vs STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE NAGAMALAI PUDUKKOTTAI POLICE STATION, MADURAI. CRIME NO.342 OF 2011 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT FOR PETITIONER : M/S.V.PAVEL ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT : MR.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 the first accused in Crime No.342 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police, for offence under Section 307 @ 302 I.P.C. The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 16.09.2011. He has come forward with this petition seeking bail. 2. Heard Mr.V.Pavel, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.S.Duraipandian, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit in his argument that the petitioner is the husband of the de-facto complainant and he is an innocent person and he has not involved in the alleged occurrence. He would further submit in his argument that the petitioner and his deceased wife had legal proceedings prior to their compromise and only out of that enmity, she has given the complaint against the petitioner. He would further submit in his argument that the petitioner has been in judicial custody from 16.09.2011 onwards. He would further submit that the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions likely to be imposed by this Court in the event of granting bail to the petitioner. 4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit in his argument that the petitioner has been implicated in this case on the basis of the complaint given by his wife prior to her death and on the dying declaration given by her. He would further submit that the investigation is pending and if for any reason the petitioner is granted bail on consideration of time limit, suitable conditions may be imposed for his secured presence. 5. I have considered the above submissions. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6. Considering the submissions made by both sides, I could see that the petitioner has been in judicial custody from 16.09.2011 onwards i.e., more than ninety days and the investigation is still pending. Considering the lapse of time, 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 No.VI, Madurai; and (ii) the Petitioner shall report before the respondent police twice a day i.e., morning at 10.30 a.m., and evening at 5.30 p.m., until further orders. sd/- 16/12/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.VI, MADURAI. 2 DO-THRO' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MADURAI. 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NAGAMALAI PUDUKKOTTAI POLICE STATION, MADURAI. 4 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1 CC TO M/S.V.PAVEL, ADVOCATE SR.NO.44001. ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.16478 of 2011 Date :16/12/2011 2P/6C RPB : 19.12.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/