Muthupandi @ Karuppu Muthu vs State

T.V.Thamilselvi, J

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 03.10.2022 for the offence under Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 341, 302 and 506(ii) I.P.C., in Crime No.416 of 2022, on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

The case of the prosecution is that there was previous enmity between the deceased group and the accused over non-return of mobile phone of one Gowtham and consequently, on 02.10.2022 at about 11.30 p.m. when the defacto complainant and the deceased were coming near Thirumazhisai Ettiyathamman temple, the mother of accused had asked the deceased to return phone of her son, for which the deceased abused mother of accused and subsequently on the same day, when the defacto complainant, the deceased and another friend were coming near Ettiyathamman temple, the petitioner and other accused waylaid the deceased, abused him and also pushed him down and assaulted over the head of deceased with stone, in which he sustained serious head injury and died on the spot. Hence, the complaint.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is no way connected with the offence and further, the petitioner is brother of Gowtham (1st accused). He would submit that already there was some dispute between the deceased and 1st accused, thereby the petitioner being brother of A1, tried to compromise the wordy quarrel in the occurrence place. He would submit that he has not at all committed any offence as alleged by the respondent police. He would further submit that the investigation is almost completed and that the petitioner has been suffering incarceration for more than 76 days from 03.10.2022. Hence, he prayed to grant bail to the petitioner.

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) raised objection stating that totally, three accused involved in this case and the petitioner is arrayed as A2 in this case. He would submit that on the date of occurrence, there was a wordy quarrel, thereby the petitioner along with other accused attacked with stone on the head of deceased, due to which, he sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. He would submit that A1 and A2 are in still in judicial custody. He would further submit that the investigation is almost completed and if he is released on bail, he would hamper the investigation and tamper the witnesses. Hence, he opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

Considering the fact that the investigation is almost completed, and also considering the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, 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 bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Poonamallee, 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 petitioners shall appear before the respondent police at 10.30 a.m. daily for a period of three months and thereafter, on every Saturday for another period of three months.

(c) the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

(d) the petitioner shall not abscond 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 petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners 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]; and;

(f) if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229-A IPC.