Partly allowed

Prabakaran, v. the State

Madras HC2 Dec 2013CRL OP(MD)/20294/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an anticipatory bail petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. concerning a murder case accused of election-related conspiracy, the Madras High Court dismissed the plea of one petitioner while granting conditional anticipatory bail to two others who were not charged with fatal overt acts.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted to petitioners 1 and 3 subject to bond of Rs. 25,000 each with sureties and daily appearance before police; petition dismissed for petitioner 2.

Prabakaran, Vs the State — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶2

Monday, the Second day of December Two Thousand Thirteen

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.SATHYANARAYANAN

¶5

CRL OP(MD) No.20294 of 2013

¶6

1 PRABAKARAN, 2 JEYARANI 3 PRASANTH ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 9 TO 11

¶7

THE STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANUR POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT CRIME NO.316/2013 ... RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT

¶8

For Petitioner : M/S.AR.JEYA RHUTHRAN Advocate For Respondent : M/S..K.V.RAJARAJAN,

¶9

Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side)

¶10

PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C.

¶11

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶12

The petitioners/accused Nos.9 to 11 apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged commission offence punishable under sections 147, 148, 341, 302, 109 and 120(b) of IPC in Crime No.316 of 2013 on the file of the respondent police seek anticipatory bail.

¶13

2.There are totally 11 accused. The case of the prosecution is that there was election dispute between the deceased Ramachandran and Ponnusamy and his wife Jeyarani, who is also a Local Body President and a conspiracy has been hatched to do away with the life of the said Ramachandran. When the deceased Ramachandran was returning at about 11.30 hours on 02.08.2013 to his native place from Tirunelveli, the accused namely Thiyagarajan, Murugan, Mariappan, Premkumar and Rasukutti @ Perumal were armed with weapons. They were accompanied with some other persons including Prasanth, who is the third petitioner in this petition. All of them surrounded and way laid the deceased Ramachandran and he was fatally attacked by Murugan, Thiyagarajan, Mariappan, Rasukkutti @ Perumal https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and Premkumar and after committing the offence, all of them fled away from the scene of occurrence.

¶14

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that as per the complaint given by the defacto complainant, namely Thangaraj, the petitioners have not been implicated in any manner. Even as per the confession of one of the accused namely Thiyagarajan, the case of conspiracy has been made out against Ponnumsay and his wife Jeyarani and in the absence of any specific overt act on the part of the petitioners, they may be enlarged on anticipatory bail. He would further submit that the third petitioner namely Prasanth is a First Year Student of Einstein College of Engineering, Alangulam, Tirunelveli.

¶15

4.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (criminal side) strongly opposes this application by showing the counter affidavit filed in Crl.O.P.(md).No.17417 of 2013 and submits that the petitioners had also conspired with other accused to do with the life of Ramachandran and the confession statement of Thiyagarajan clearly implicates them. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be enlarged on bail.

¶16

5.This Court has fairly considered the rival submissions and also perused the counter affidavit filed in Crl.O.P.(md).17417 of 2013 as well as the case diary.

¶17

6.A perusal of the confession statement said to have been given by one of the accused Thiyagarajan would show that the petitioner No.2 and her husband Ponnusamy had conspired to do away with the life of the deceased Ramachandran and the other persons armed with lethal weapons caused grievous injuries on Ramachandran and consequently Ramachandran died on the spot. The alleged confession statement given by Thiyagarajan would disclose that the petitioners 1 & 3 have not been attributed with any fatal overt act and they have instigated other accused to do away with the life of the deceased and they are not having any previous antecedents.

¶18

7.In the light of the above facts and circumstances, this court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail in respect of the second petitioner. Hence, this petition in respect of the second petitioner viz., Jeyarani is dismissed. However, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioners 1 & 3 on anticipatory bail, subject to the following conditions.

¶19

8.Accordingly, the petitioners 1 & 3 are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, No.V, Tirunelveli District and on each executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the petitioners 1 & 3 shall appear before the respondent police daily at 11.00 a.m until further orders. The petitioners shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C., scrupulously.

¶20

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶21

9.The petitioners shall appear before the concerned Magistrate within a period of 15 days from the date on which the order copy made ready, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail stands dismissed.

¶22

TO	Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
1.THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.V TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT
2.DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT	MAGISTRATE
3.THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECU MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH MADURAI	TOR, COURT,
4.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANUR POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT
+1. CC to M/S.AR.JEYA RHUTHRAN	Advocate SR.No.59739
RL/6C – 3/12/2013
	ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.20294 of 2013 Date :02/12/2013

¶23

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Prabakaran, v. the State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prabakaran, v. the State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State Rep by Secretary Vs G.Karunairaj

M.Vetri Selvan, Advocate Vs Union of India

Er.N.Raghavendran Vs the Management

Mariappan Vs the Inspector of Police

Ponuchamy Vs the Sub - Inspector of Police

Kumar Vs the Inspector of Police