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.13126 of 2011 1 N. ARUMUGAM 2 MANIKANDAN 3 PATCHAIMAL 4 KARUPPAIAH ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1,3,4,5 Vs STATE REP.BY, THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE MANDALAMANICKAM POLICE STATION, KAMUTHI, RAMNAD DISTRICT, CRIME NO.33/2011 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. A.V.ARUN Advocate For Respondent : MR.K.CHELLAPANDIAN, Addl.Advocate General For Intervener : M/S.P.RATHINAM Advocate PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners are A-1, A-3, A-4 and A-5 in Crime No.33 of 2011 for offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 302 I.P.C., r/w Section 3(1) (X) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and they were arrested on 10.09.2011. Hence, the petitioners have come up with this petition, seeking bail. 2. According to the case of prosecution, there was writing on the wall in the village on 08.09.2011 defaming the leader of the accused group. The accused belong to the non-scheduled caste community, whereas the deceased belongs to the Scheduled caste community. The accused had a suspicion that the said wall writing was made by the people belonging to the Scheduled Caste. In order to teach a lesson to the persons who wrote the defaming words, according to the prosecution, a conspiracy was hatched by the accused on 09.09.2011, in order to do away with anyone who belongs to Scheduled Caste. In pursuance of the said conspiracy, it is alleged that accused Nos.1 and 2 committed murder of the deceased who was hardly aged about sixteen years and studying +2. The dead body was found on 10.09.2011. Thereafter on a complaint, a case was registered. Now, the case is under investigation. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. The learned Additional Advocate General would submit that subsequent to the above occurrence, there was a clash in the village and in which, 6 people lost their lives in the police firing and several persons sustained injuries. Regarding that also, a case is now pending. Apart from these two cases, there are several other cases pending between the two groups. He would further submit that as of now, there is police picketing in the village and tension is prevailing between the people belonging to two groups. With a very great difficult, the law and order was brought under control. He would further add that 'Guru Pooja' of the leader of the accused group is going to be celebrated soon. If the petitioners are released on bail at this stage, they may erect further clash between the two groups. For the above reasons, the learned Additional Advocate General stoutly oppose this bail application. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that if such apprehension is there, the petitioners are prepared to stay away at any place. He would further submit that the petitioners are innocent people which is evident from the fact that there was a demonstration in the village by the people belonging to the Scheduled Caste, demanding to arrest all real culprits by leaving the petitioners. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would further submit that the father of the deceased himself participated in the said demonstration. Therefore, according to him, even according to the father of the deceased, the petitioners are innocent people. He would further submit that the Investigation Officer, who investigate this case, does not keep clean records. As a matter of fact, for malicious prosecution, a Writ Petition is also pending in W.P(MD)No.7606 of 2010. In which, the Home Secretary has filed a counter admitting that the Investigation Officer does not keep clean records of his service. Therefore, according the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, all are not well with the prosecution. Therefore, the petitioners may be granted bail. 5. Mr.P.Rathinam, learned counsel, intervened on behalf of the father of the deceased. On his oral submission, permission was granted by this Court to intervene in this matter, so as to assist the Court. He would support the argument of the learned Additional Advocate General and he would also oppose the grant of bail to the petitioners. He would further add that there is tension prevailing in the village and release of these petitioners may give room for further clash. 6. I have considered the above submissions. 7. As repeatedly has been cautioned by the Honourable Supreme Court, while deciding a bail application, this Court should not indulge in a detailed documentation by analysing the pros and cons of all the details of the case. This Court is now concerned only with the prima facie case against the petitioners and other attendant circumstances to decide as to whether grant of bail to the petitioners would not be a hindrance for further investigation. Though it is alleged that the father of the deceased was a party to the demonstration, the learned Additional Advocate General would submit that there is no grievance on the part of anybody regarding investigation. This aspect cannot be gone into in detail. As of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ now, based on the conspiracy said to have hatched on 09.09.2011, the murder has taken place. The involvement of these petitioners has also been gathered by examining some witnesses. It is needless to point out that subsequent to the above murder, there was a clash in the village and in which, six persons belonging to the Scheduled Caste lost their lives in police firing. There are several other cases pending between the two groups. As contended by the learned Additional Advocate General, there is tension prevailing in the village and there is constant police picketing. There are number of cases pending before various Courts. The 'Guru Pooja' of the leader of the petitioners' community also is fast approaching. 8. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that if the petitioners are granted bail, it will not be in the interest of prosecution. Such release will surely hamper the investigation. Therefore, it is not a fit case to grant bail to the petitioners at this stage. 9. For the reasons stated above, this Petition is dismissed. Sd/- 18/10/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE MANDALAMANICKAM POLICE STATION, KAMUTHI, RAMNAD DISTRICT 2 THE ADDL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI 3 THE SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL JAIL, MADURAI +1. CC to M/S. A.V.ARUN Advocate SR.No.35936 ssk/21.10.2011 /5c -3p/- ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.13126 of 2011 Date :18/10/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/