BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Fourth day of February Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice C.T.SELVAM CRL OP(MD) No.1278 of 2011 1. GANESAN 2. KUMAR @ MUTHUKUMAR ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 & 2 Vs INSPECTOR OF POLICE VADAKADU POLICE STATION, CR.NO. 159 OF 2010, PUDUKKOTTAI DIST ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : MR.N.R.ELANGO, Learned Senior Counsel M/S. V.BHARATHIDASAN Advocate For Respondent : MR.P.RAJENDRAN, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) For Intervenor : MR.G.R.EDMOND, Learned Counsel PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner are arrayed as A1 and A2 and the petitioners were remanded to Judicial custody on 11.10.2010 and 25.10.2010 respectively for the alleged offence punishable under Section 302 IPC r/w Section 4 of Explosive Substance Act altered into 120(B), 302 r/w 34 IPC in Crime No.159 of 2010 on the file of the respondent police and hence seek bail. 2. Heard Mr.N.R.Elango, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.V.Bharathidasan learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.P.Rajendran, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the state and Mr.G.R.Edmond, learned counsel appearing for the intervenor. 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the case of the prosecution is that in a property dispute between the father of the first accused and his brother Selvam the deceased participated as a mediator and at that time there was hot verbal exchanges and in the course thereof the deceased threw a cheppal at the first petitioner's father. Enraged thereby, the first petitioner engaged the accused 3 to 5 to do away with the deceased. The role attributed to the second petitioner is that he watched the movements of the deceased towards enabling the commission of offence. He further submits that the charge sheet has been filed in the case and these petitioners have been in Judicial Custody from 11.01.2010 and 25.10.2010 respectively. 4.Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that this is a case of brutal murder and allowing the petitioner at large would not be in the interest of Justice. He would add that the earlier petition for bail was dismissed very recently i.e., on 21.01.2011. 5. Mr.G.R.Edmond, seeks to intervene in the present petition informing that he has moved a petition for intervene that the investigating agency has wrongfully conducted itself and a petition has been moved before this Court Seeking further investigation. He would https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ state that such petition stands admitted and proceedings before the lower court stands stayed. 6. Considering the rival submissions and also considering the fact that we would not not be swayed by the pendency of the petition seeking further investigation and change of investigating agency and also taking into consideration the long period of detention under gone by them, this court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioners with certain condition. Accordingly the petitioners are 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 Judicial Magistrate, Alangudi, and on further condition that the petitioners shall stay at Chennai and report before the Flower` Bazaar Police Station, Chennai every day by morning at 10.00 am., until further orders. sd/- 04/02/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ALANGUDI. 2. -DO- THRO THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,PUDUKOTTAI. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, TRICHY. 4. INSPECTOR OF POLICE VADAKADU POLICE STATION, PUDUKKOTTAI DISTRICT. 5. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1. CC to M/S. V.BHARATHIDASAN Advocate SR.No.4335 SR : 07.02.2011 : 2p/7c ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.1278 of 2011 Date :04/02/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/