1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT (Criminal Jurisdiction) Thursday, the Twenty Fourth day of November Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH CRL OP(MD) No.15307 of 2011 1 CHOKKI @ ASHOK PRASANNA 2 BUTTAN @ VIGNESHKUMAR :PETITIONERS / ACCUSED NOS.5&7 -Vs- THE STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, OOMATCHIKULAM POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT. CRIME NO.711/2011l :RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. A.JEYARAMACHANDRAN, 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 petitioners are arrayed as A5 & A7 and they were arrested by the respondent police on 14.10.2011 for the alleged commission of offence under Section 302 I.P.C., which was altered into Sections 143, 120(B), 109 and 302 I.P.C., in Crime No.711 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek bail. 2.Heard Mr.A.Jeyaramachandran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.K.S.Durai Pandian, learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Criminal side) appearing for the State. 3.According to the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are ranked as A4 and A6. He would further submit that the petitioners have no direct role in the alleged occurrence, but, the first petitioner/A6 said to have informed the first accused about the location of the deceased persons for committing the offence of murder and the second petitioner/A4 is said to have used his auto for the transport of the accused persons to commit the offence. He would further submit in his argument that both the petitioners have not known about the intention of the accused and they have no mens rea to commit the offence. He would further submit in his argument that the co-accused A7 viz., Balamurugan was granted bail by the learned Sessions Judge and the petitioners are also on the similar footing and therefore, they may be also be granted bail. He would further submit in his argument that the petitioners are in judicial custody for more than 40 days and the investigation is not yet to have completed and he would request this Court to grant bail. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Criminal side) would submit in his argument that the petitioners have actively helped the main accused persons viz., A1 and A3 for the commission of murder on the motive that the deceased was having illicit intimacy with the wife of the first accused. He would further submit in his argument that the information given by the first accused/A6 had initiated the occurrence and the second petitioner, had knowing full well that the other accused going to commit the offence, transported the accused persons in his auto and therefore, the stand on the petitioners herein are not similar to the stand of A7, who had helped the accused persons and subsequent to the occurrence for cleaning their blood stained clothes. He would further submit in his argument that the investigation is pending and if for any reason, the petitioners are released on bail there is a likelyhood of absconding as well as tampering of the witnesses and thereby hampering of the investigation. 5.Considering the submissions made by both sides, this Court could see that the petitioners have been in judicial custody from 14.10.2011 onwards. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl.side) that the investigation is still pending. 6.Considering the similarity of the case of the petitioners that the 7th accused, who was granted bail by the learned Sessions Judge, I could see that the petitioners are said to have helped the main accused persons viz., A1 and A3 prior to the incident as well as the commission of offence. But, however, 7th accused viz., Balamurugan had helped the petitioners only after the occurrence and therefore, I could see that the petitioner had actively helped to do the crime and when it is compared with the 7th accused, they are not similar in standing. 7.In the said circumstances, the investigation is pending and if for any reason, the petitioners are entitled to grant bail, there is a likelyhood of absconding as well as tampering the witnesses and hampering the investigation. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. sd/- 24/11/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO: 1.The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 2.The Inspector of Police, Oomatchikulam Police Station, Madurai District. 3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Madurai. RP/29.11.2011/2P/4C. ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.15307 of 2011 Date :24/11/2011. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/