Prabakaran vs State

A.D.Jagadish Chandira, J

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 13.04.2023, for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 294(b), 353 & 506(ii) of IPC, in Crime No.206 of 2023, on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

The case of the prosecution as per the de-facto complainant, Venkatesan, Village Administrative Officer, Nochili Village, Pallipet Taluk is that the accused, in violation of the rules had buried the body of one Narasimhalu Naidu in Survey No.201/3 on 02.04.2023. Further, in the peace committee meeting, when the Government Officials asked the accused to bury the body of the said Narasimhalu Naidu in Survey No.205/1, the accused have refused to do the same and threatened the Officials and also prevented them from discharging their official duty. Hence, the case.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and a false complaint has been given as against the petitioner and others. He further submitted that the property in question is belongs to one Santha Naidu and after obtaining the necessary permission from the said Santha Naidu, the petitioners and his relatives had buried the body of the said Narasimhalu Naidu, whereas, a false complaint has been given as if the property is belongs to one Babu Naidu and based on which, the petitioner was arrested and he is in custody from 13.04.2023. He also submitted that the co-accused in this case has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.12158 of 2023 dated 26.05.2023. He further submitted that the petitioner is also ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that the petitioner along with others have buried the body of their relative one Narasimhalu Naidu, in Survey No.201/3 instead of Survey No.205/1, when it was questioned by the de-facto complainant, they had abused the de-facto complainant and other officials, threatened them and also prevented them from discharging their official duties. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the Intervener submitted that the petitioner is a habitual offender, who is repeatedly involved in rowdyism in that area. He further submitted that the petitioner having known that the property does not belongs to the said Santha Naidu, had buried the body of his relative in the de-facto complainant's land, in order to create problem. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the petitioner's application for bail.

Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Intervener and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and taking note of 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 a 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 District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Pallipattu, 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 stay at Madurai and report before the Inspector of Police, Tallakulam Police Station, Madurai, everyday at 10.30 a.m. for a period of four weeks and thereafter, shall report before respondent police everyday at 10.30 a.m. for the period of four weeks and thereafter, as and when required for the interrogation;

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

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

[f] 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];

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