J.Suresh Babu vs State

A.D.Jagadish Chandira, J

The petitioner, who has been arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 31.12.2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC, pursuant to a non bailable warrant dated 23.10.2020 in S.C.No.38 of 2021 on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vellore, Tirupattur District, seeks bail.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a single accused in S.C.No.38 of 2021 and the petitioner was initially granted bail, thereafter, after completion of investigation, the respondent has filed the final report before the Judicial Magistrate, Ambur in P.R.C.No.2 of 2020. However, without service of summons, the Committal Court has issued a non bailable warrant of arrest on 23.10.2020 against him and immediately, on coming to know about the issuance of non bailable warrant, the petitioner surrendered before the committal Court on 31.12.2020, whereas, the Court without recalling the warrant had remanded the petitioner. He would further submit that now the case has been committed to Sessions Court and taken up on file by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vellore, Tirupattur District in S.C.No.38 of 2021. He would also submit that the trial has commenced and the petitioner is unable to engage a proper advocate and conduct the trial. He would also submit that the petitioner undertakes to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court and to cooperate for the speedy disposal of the trial. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the petitioner.

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that the case is of the year 2014 and after the case was taken up on file, the petitioner did not appear before the Court on 23.10.2020 and the trial Judge has issued a non bailable warrant and the petitioner has been arrested. Now the trial is commenced and the case stands posted to 19.09.2022 for examination of LW.3 and LW.4 and there are totally 32 witnesses in this case and only 3 witnesses have been examined. Therefore, he vehemently opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

Heard both the learned counsel and perused the materials available on record.

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions made by the learned counsel and also finding that there are 29 witnesses to be examined and finding that it will take some considerable time to complete the trial and also the period of incarceration suffered by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties (out of which, one surety should be a blood related surety), each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vellore, Tirupattur District, and on further conditions that:

[a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;

[b] the petitioner shall appear before the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vellore, Tirupattur District at 10.30 a.m., on all working days, until further orders;

[c] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

[d] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

[e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560];

[f] If the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.