Rathinavelu vs State

This appeal has been preferred against the order passed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (under Scheduled Caste and

Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, in Crl.M.P.No.17 of 2018 in S.C.No.33 of 2017 by order dated 30.01.2018.

The allegations against the appellant are for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 302 read with 149 and 109 of IPC and Section 3 of

the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, and 143, 120B, 109, 449, 427 and 302 read with 149 of IPC and Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of Explosive

Substances Act, 1908, and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015.

The appellant is A3 in this case. He was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 05.05.2017.

According to the prosecution, the appellant is also one of the conspirators, who along with A1 conspired to eliminate the victim and accordingly,

the victim was eliminated. However, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant would state that like A1 and A8, he had also no connection

whatsoever with the death of the victim in this case. The appellant herein has no direct contact or connection or involvement with regard to the

alleged offences.

In this regard, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant also relied upon the order of this Court, where this Court has already considered,

in Crl.A.Nos.72 and 81 of 2018, the bail application in respect of A1 and A8 and after hearing both sides, I have passed an order for releasing

A1 and A8, on bail.

However, the learned Public Prosecutor (Puducherry) appearing for the respondent/State, by relying upon the counter affidavit filed by the

respondent would submit that, the appellant has already involved in 6 cases and therefore, if he is let off on bail, it will unnecessarily create law and

order problem in that area.

However, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant replied to the same that, out of 6 cases, in 3 cases, he has been acquitted and insofar

as the other 3 cases are concerned, i.e., in Crime No.77 of 2002, Crime No.66 of 2007 and Crime No.86 of 2009, the major offence is under

Section 506(ii) of IPC and all other offences are very minor in nature and those cases had been purposely foisted against the appellant.

I have considered the rival submissions made by both sides and perused the materials placed before this Court.

Insofar as the appellant is concerned, it is the case of the appellant that he has only been shown as conspirer and he had no direct involvement in

the alleged offence.

When such kind of conspiracy had been alleged against A1, that was considered in the earlier order of this Court dated 12.02.2018 and

ultimately, this Court has granted bail to A1 and A8 and as this appellant/A3 is also similarly placed, this Court is inclined to entertain this appeal

and pass the following orders:

(a)The appellant shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh only) with two sureties, out of

which, one must be a Government surety, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned II Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (under

Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Puducherry, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy

of this order.

(b)The appellant on releasing on bail shall stay at Karaikal and report before the Karaikal Town Police Station, daily at 11.00 a.m., until further

orders.

Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is disposed of.