BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Fifteenth day of September Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice R.MALA CRL OP(MD) Nos.11578 and 11586 of 2011 KONGAN @ KUMAR ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED NO.2 IN BOTH THE PETITIONS Vs STATE, REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE UTHUMALAI POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT, CRIME NOS.130/2011 & 129/2011 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT IN BOTH THE PETITIONS For Petitioner in both the Petitions : M/S. P.PETHU RAJESH Advocate For Respondent in both the Petitions: 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 petitioner in both petitions are one and the same and he is arrayed as A2 and he was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 20.05.2011 for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 452, 302 and 109 I.P.C. and Sections 147, 148, 341, 302 and 109 in Crime Nos.130 of 2011 and 129 of 2011 respectively on the file of the respondent police and hence, seeks bail. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that initially a case has been registered against the petitioner and others for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 341, 302 and 109 I.P.C. in Crime No.129 of 2011 for the occurrence took place on 19.05.2011 at about 1.00 p.m. He would further submit that another case has been registered against the petitioner and others for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 452, 302 and 109 I.P.C. in Crime No.130 of 2011 for the occurrence took place on the same at 1.30 pm. on the same day. He would further submit that already A9 to A11 were enlarged on bail in Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.11451 and 11452 respectively and the charge sheet in both cases have already been filed and since the petitioner is in judicial custody for more than 110 days and hence he has come forward with the present application for enlarging them on bail. 3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that because of the previous enmity in respect of the milk vending business, on 19.05.2011 at 1.00 p.m., the petitioner and others attacked the deceased Selvaraj as a result of which he died and thereafter, the petitioner and others gone to the house of the deceased Selvaraj and attacked the wife of Selvaraj viz., Thangamani as a result of which she also died. He would further submit that it is a gruesome murder and the petitioner / A2 has taken active part in the commission of offence and it is a pre-planned murders and even though charge sheet has been filed, it is not a fit case to grant https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ bail to the petitioner and he prayed for the dismissal of the applications. 4. I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on records. 5. Considering the rival submissions and perusal of the F.I.R., it is clear that because of the previous enmity in respect of milk vending business, on the fateful day on 19.05.2011 at 1.00 pm., when the deceased Selvaraj was proceeding towards his Hero Honda motor cycle bearing registration No.TN 76 B 9937, the petitioner and others came in an omni van and dashed against the motor cycle and assaulted the deceased and murdered him and hence, the case in Crime No.129 of 2011 has been registered. Thereafter, immediately, at 1.30 p.m. the accused persons gone to the house of the deceased Selvaraj and attacked one Thangamani, who is the wife of the deceased Selvaraj and also murdered her and hence, the another case in crime No.130 of 2011 has been registered. 6. As per the averment of the F.I.Rs. The petitioner / A2 has taken active part in the commission of offence and prima facie offence has been made out against the petitioner / A2. Even though, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that since charge sheets in both cases have been filed, already co accused A9 to A11 were enlarged on bail, perusal of the F.I.R. would reveal that the names of A9 to A11 have not been find place in the F.I.R. and no overt act attributed against A9 to A11. It is not a conditional precedent that once co-accused has been released on bail, the petitioner is also entitled for bail. It is a gruesome and preplanned murder for previous enmity, where at 1.00 p.m. the petitioner and others committed the murder of Selvaraj at 1.30 p.m., they committed the murder of his wife also. Hence, I am of the opinion that even though the petitioner is in judicial custody for more than 110 days, it is not a fit case to grant bail to the petitioner and the applications deserve to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, these criminal original applications are dismissed. sd/- 15/09/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI 2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE UTHUMALAI POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, PALAYAMKOTTAI +1cc to Mr.P.Pethu Rajesh Advocate, Sr.No.31541 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) Nos.11578 & 11586 of 2011 Date :15/09/2011 SMA/20.9.2011/5C/2P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/