BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Twenty Fourth day of August Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice S.PALANIVELU CRL OP(MD) No.11068 of 2011 1 CHINNA RAMAIAH 2 MURUGAN ... PETITIONERS / ACCUSED NOS.1 & 2 Vs THE STATE REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KURIVIKULAM POLICE STATION, CRIME NO.115/2011, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. V.KATHIRVELU SENIOR COUNSEL FOR M/S. S.RAGAVENTHRE Advocate For Respondent : M/S. A.RAMAR, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners are arrayed as A1 and A2 and they were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 25.06.2011 and 15.06.2011 respectively for the alleged offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. in Crime No.115 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek bail. 2. Heard both sides. 3. In the FIR it is stated that the deceased by name Thavasi along with others who were playing cards and on hearing noise, both the accused went there and hauled them up, that a wordy quarrel ensued between them and the deceased by means of aruval cut the first accused on his left hand and left leg, that the first accused pushed the deceased down and picked a stone nearby and hit him with it on his left side of the face indiscriminately, that the second accused came to the scene and assaulted the deceased by means of a stick on his head and face and hence, he died. 4. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that the FIR would show that the first accused also sustained injury in the scene of crime and even in the FIR there was no premeditation on the part of the accused to assault the deceased, that the first accused is aged about 65 years, both the accused are in custody for about 61 days and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 71 days respectively and that the investigation was over. 5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor raised objection by stating that the investigation is pending and the examination of six witnesses is over. He says that at the time of occurrence, the deceased assaulted the first accused by means of aruval on his shoulder and left knee. 6. Going by allegations in the FIR, it transpires that there was no mala fide intention on the part of the petitioners to commit offences earlier to the occurrence. It is stated that it is in a fit of fury the occurrence took place. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, that most part of the investigation is also over and that if the petitioners were released on bail, there may not be any possibility for tampering the witnesses, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioners with certain conditions. 8. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on each of them 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 learned Judicial Magistrate, Sankarankovil, and on further condition that the petitioners shall report before the Judicial Magistrate, Sathur, daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders. sd/- 24/08/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE SANKARANKOVIL 2 -DO-THRO' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE TIRUNELVELI 3 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE SATHUR, VIRUDHUNAGAR DIST 4 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KURIVIKULAM POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT 5 THE SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL PRISON, PALAYAMKOTTAI +1. CC to M/S. S.RAGAVENTHRE Advocate SR.No.28800 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.11068 of 2011 Date :24/08/2011 SMA/29.8.2011/7C/2P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/