1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Seventh day of September Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice R.MALA CRL OP(MD) No.11676 of 2011 YOGARAJ .. PETITIONER/SOLE ACCUSED VS. STATE THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, UTHAPPANAICKANOOR POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT, CR.NO.98/2011 .. RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S N. ANANTHAPADMANABAN, Advocate For Respondent : MR. A.RAMAR, Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner is arrayed as an accused and he was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 01.07.2011 for the alleged offence punishable under Section 302 IPC in Crime No.98 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seeks bail. 2.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and a false case has been foisted against the petitioner under Section 302 IPC. He would further submit that the alleged occurrence has been taken place on 30.06.2011 and the case has been registered on the same day and he was arrested and he is in judicial custody for ore than 65 days. He would submit that the deceased is the erstwhile wife of the petitioner and the marriage was performed in the year 2001 and the deceased gave birth a child and the child also died. 3.He would further submit that because of the difference of opinion arose between the deceased and the petitioner, customary divorce has been taken place and the deceased filed a maintenance application under Section 125 Cr.P.C and on the fateful day i.e on 30.06.2011, the deceased attended https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 the Court along with the de-facto complainant, who is none other than the brother of the deceased. He would further submit that the case of the prosecution is that the petitioner has taken the deceased to his house for re-union and at that time, the de-facto complainant was accompanying her and he was waiting outside of the house for searching the elders for compromising the matter and at 12.30 p.m., he came to know that the deceased was murdered by the petitioner and immediately, he has given a complaint. He would further submit that after the customary divorce, the petitioner has married another lady and they have a child and there is no chance for re-union and hence, the case of the prosecution is a cock and bull story and the petitioner is inside the jail for 65 days and since the investigation is considerably over, he prays for the enlargement of bail to the petitioner. 4.Repudiating the same, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the alleged occurrence has been taken place at 12.30 p.m., on 30.06.2011 and the complaint has been given on the same day at 14.00 hours and the investigation is in earlier stage and there is a motive for the commission of offence and this is a case based on circumstantial evidence and the investigation is going on and hence, he prayed for the dismissal of the bail application. 5.I have considered the rival submission made on either side and perused the material available on records. 6.The alleged occurrence has been taken place on 30.06.2011 at 12.30 p.m and the complaint has been given immediately by the brother of the deceased and the petitioner was arrested on 01.07.2011 and remanded to judicial custody. In the complaint, it has been specifically mentioned that the deceased was given marriage to the petitioner and they were having a child when they were at Kerala and the child was died. When they returned to Tamil Nadu, there is a difference of opinion between them and he got second marriage. Hence, the deceased has filed a maintenance application and thereafter, there are case and counter cases in Crime No.49 of 2011 and 50 of 2011, in pursuance of the occurrence taken place on 24.01.2011. 7.Perusal of the FIR and the case diary, it is true that the body has been found place in the house of the petitioner and the post-mortem would https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 reveal that there are cut throat injuries all vital parts trachea, oero thagis, spinal card, vessels, nerves cut and right side of the flap of muscles only attached with the head struck and the investigation is going on. It is true there are case and counter cases pending between the parties and the maintenance application is also pending. 8.In such circumstances, I am of the view that if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he will tamper the witnesses and abscond from the jurisdiction and hence, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner and the criminal original petition deserves to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Sd/- 07/09/2011 /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(C.S) To 1.THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, MADURAI 2.THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, UTHAPPANAICKANOOR POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT 3.THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.11676 of 2011 Date :07/09/2011 TR : 13.09.2011: 3p/4c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/