1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Eighteenth day of October Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice S.NAGAMUTHU CRL OP(MD) No.13825 of 2011 1.NACHIYAPPAN 2.SUBBRAMANIYAN 3.VEERAPANDIYAN 4.KARPAGAM ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 4 Vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE THIRUMAYAM POLICE STATION, PUDUKOTTAI DISTRICT CR NO. 114/2011 ... RESPONDENT For Petitioner : M/S. G.BHAGAVATH SINGH Advocate For Respondent : MR. K.S.DURAI PANDIAN, Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- There are four petitioners in this petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner has made an endorsement not pressing this petition in respect of the petitioners 1 to 3. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as not pressed in respect of the petitioners 1 to 3. Sofar as the 4th petitioner is concerned, she is the 4th accused in this case and the offences involved are under Sections 341, 302 and 506(ii) IPC. The alleged occurrence was on 27.08.2011. The 4th petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 28.08.2011. She seeks bail with this petition. 2.According to the case of prosecution, the wife of the first accused had illicit intimacy with the deceased Senthilkumar. The first accused was in a foreign country on account of his job. During his absence, the deceased continued his intimacy with the wife of the first accused. The first accused thereafter returned to India. He reprimanded the deceased. But the deceased did not stop the intimacy. This is the motive for committing murder. The only overt act against the 4th accused is that she spoke to the deceased over phone asking him to come to a particular place. Whiel so, the other accused waylaid the deceased and then had done to death. The fourth accused was not present at the time of occurrence. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3.I have considered the above submissions. 4.The alleged allegation is that the fourth petitioner had spoken to the deceased over phone. Apart from that there is no other overt act. She is having a child of two years who requires partronage of the 4th petitioner. Above all the 4th petitioner being a women enjoys a special status under Section 437 Cr.P.C. Having regard to the above facts, I am of the view that investigation will not be in any way hampered with, by the release of this fourth petitioner on bail. Thus, I am inclined to grant bail tot he 4th petitioner, but with stringent conditions. 5.In the result, bail is granted to the 4th petitioner alone on the following conditions:- i)The 4th petitioner shall be enlarged on bail on her executing 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 Judicial Magistrate, Thirumayam; and ii)The 4th petitioner shall report before the All Women Police Station, Pudukkottai, everyday at 10.30 a.m., until further orders. sd/- 18/10/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) To 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THIRUMAYAM 2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, PUDUKKOTTAI 3 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, TRICHY 4 THE OFFICER INCHARGE, SPECIAL PRISON FOR WOMEN, TRICHY 5 THE OFFICER INCHARGE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, PUDUKKOTTAI 6 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE THIRUMAYAM POLICE STATION, PUDUKKOTTAI 7 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1. CC to M/S. G.BHAGAVATH SINGH Advocate SR.No.35879 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.13825 of 2011 Date :18/10/2011 TR :21.10.2011: 2p/9c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/