BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Saturday, the Ninth day of April Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.SATHYANARAYANAN CRL OP(MD) No.4714 of 2011 CHELLADURAI ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED NO.2 Vs THE STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE SENDAMARAM POLICE STATION, CR.NO. 41/2011 , TIRUNELVELI DIST ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S S.RAGAVENTHRE Advocate For Respondent : M/S. L.MURUGAN, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- There are totally 2 accused and this petitioner is arrayed as A2 and he was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 25.02.2011 for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C., in Crime No.41 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police. Initially the case was registered under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. and later on it was altered into Section 302 I.P.C. and hence seeks bail. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased viz., Santhanamari who was the daughter of the first accused was living wayward life. On 13.02.2011, accused No.1 took the deceased in his two wheeler to a remote spot and thereafter, accused No.1 attacked her with knife on her chest and the petitioner / A1 using a spade attacked her on the left side of the neck and consequently she died thereafter, they buried the body and left the place. However, A1 lodged a complaint on 16.02.2011 stating that her daughter was missing. It is further alleged by the prosecution that A1, who is the father of the deceased went to the village Administrative Officer and made an extra judicial confession, on 25.02.2011 accepting his guilt and thereafter, both accused were arrested and remanded to judicial custody. 3. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner / A2 would submit that admittedly, the case of the prosecution is solely based upon circumstatial evidence and that the body has not been identified even by the first accused, who is the father of the deceased. It is further submitted by the learned Senior counsel, for the petitioner that the accused is in custody right from 25.02.2011 and both accused were already apprehended and material part of the investigation is already over. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) would submit that on the bais of the extra judicial confession given by A1, on 25.02.2011 before the Village Administrative Officer, the commission of offence came to light and both accused were apprehended and that the investigation is pending. 5.This Court taking into consideration of the facts and circumstance of the case, is of the view that the petitioner is to be enlarged on bail subject to the following condition. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail shall execute a 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 Judicial Magistrate, Tenkasi and on further condition that the petitioner shall appear before the respondent police daily at 11.00 a.m. until further orders. sd/- 09/04/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE TENKASI 2 -DO-THRO CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE TIRUNELVELI 3 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI 4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE SENDAMARAM POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI DIST 5 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, PALAYAMKOTTAI +1. CC to M/S S.RAGAVENTHRE Advocate SR.No.13218 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.4714 of 2011 Date :09/04/2011 SMA/11.04.2011/7C/2P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/