Moorthy @ Shyamu vs State

A.D.Jagadish Chandira, J

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 04.10.2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 506(i) IPC @ 302 IPC, in Crime No.461 of 2022, on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

The case of the prosecution as per the de-facto complainant Makeswari is that the accused had pledged his mobile phone with the de-facto complainant's father-in-law/victim and received the amount and after some time, he asked the victim to return his phone without showing receipt and due to which, there was a quarrel between them. During such time, the accused had dashed the victim's head on the wall due to which, he sustained injuries and he was admitted in the hospital, where, he died without responding to the treatment. Hence the case.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person, aged about 19 years. He further submitted that the petitioner had pledged his mobile phone with the de-facto complainant's father-in-law and when he asked for return the same, he refused to return it, due to which, there was a quarrel and during such time, the incident had happened. He also submitted that there is no intention or motive on the part of the petitioner to commit murder of the victim and the incident has happened only during the scuffle and the deceased is the person, who had assaulted the petitioner. He also stated that the petitioner is in custody from 04.10.2022 and he is ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed to grant bail to the petitioner.

The Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that on account of non return of the pledged cellphone on demanding the receipt, there was a quarrel between the petitioner and the father-in-law of the de-facto complainant, during such time, the petitioner had dashed the head of the victim on the wall, due to which, he sustained injuries and died in the hospital without responding to the treatment. He also stated that there is no previous case as against the petitioner, however, he opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) and perused the materials available on record.

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel that the incident had happened due to the sudden quarrel and taking note of the fact that there is no previous case as against the petitioner and also considering the age of the petitioner and the period of incarceration undergone by him, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

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) each with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Polur, Tiruvannamalai 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 report before the respondent Police daily at 10.30 a.m., 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.