1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Nineteenth day of October Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr. Justice S.NAGAMUTHU CRL OP(MD) No.13791 of 2011 KEERIMANI @ MANIMARAN ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED NO.6 Vs STATE THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE AUSTINPATTI POLICE STATION, THIRUMANGALAM, MADURAI CR. NO. 432/2011 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.J.WILLIAM CHRISTOPHER Advocate For Respondent : Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner is the sixth accused in Crime No.432 of 2011 for offences under Sections 120(b), 147, 148 and 302 read with Section 201 I.P.C. The petitioner is in judicial remand from 13.08.2011 onwards. 2. According to the case of prosecution, the first accused in this case is a rowdy element having number of criminal cases against him. The petitioner is an accomplisher of the first accused. All these accused with a view to eliminate their hard rival, who is equally a rowdy element, committed the murder of the deceased on 06.08.2011 and the petitioner was arrested. He seeks bail. 3. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, though there is no previous case against the petitioner, the petitioner has joined hands with the rowdy element and he has become a member of the gang. If the petitioner is released on bail, it would surely hamper the further investigation of the case. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the accused nos.1 and 8 have been granted bail by this Court. Therefore, according to him, the petitioner is also entitled for bail. 5. In my considered opinion, it is not possible to grant to the petitioner, simply on the ground that the accused Nos.1 and 8 have been granted bail by this Court. It is not known on what ground, upon which, the accused 1 and 8 were granted bail. A perusal of the order passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge would to show that on 16.08.2011, an auto was found with a dead body. The matter, thereafter, informed to the police and during investigation, it has come out that this petitioner committed murder. With more difficulty, the investigation is progressing. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 The learned Judge has also observed that identification parade may be necessary. The learned Judge has given cogent reasons for dismissing the petition for bail. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that except this petitioner all the accused have number of previous cases, which shows that all of them are rowdy element. Is such view of the matter, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has joined hands with the rowdy element, though it is the fact that he has got no previous case, at this juncture, it is not desirable to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed at this stage. sd/- 19/10/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE AUSTINPATTI POLICE STATION, THIRUMANGALAM, MADURAI. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, MADURAI. 3. THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.13791 of 2011 Date :19/10/2011 RJ/28.10.11 2p/4c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/