The Madras High Court dismissed a bail petition filed by an accused who had absconded for 15 years. The Court refused bail, citing the high risk of absconding and the pendency of the trial, directing the trial court to dispose of the case within one month.
Petition for bail dismissed; Trial Court directed to dispose of trial within one month.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 09.02.2021
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN Crl.O.P.No.20774 of 2020
Aathi @ Arunkumar
Vs.
The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Chithode Police Station, Erode District.
(Crime No.341 of 2003) ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code to enlarge the petitioners on bail in Crime No.341 of 2003 pending investigation on the file of the Respondent.
For Petitioners : M/s. R. Sankarasubbu
For Respondent : Mrs. M. Prabhavathi, APP
O R D E R (The case has been heard through video conference)
Petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 09.11.2018 for the offence punishable under Sections 457, 380, 449, 302, 398 and 398 r/w. 34 IPC in Crime No.341 of 2003, seeks bail.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is languishing in jail for more than two years. Now trial almost completed and hence, he prays for granting bail to the petitioner.
4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would vehemently oppose stating that since A1 and A2 were absconding, the case against A3 was split up and trail has been conducted only in respect of A3 and he was convicted. Now, the case is pending for more than 15 years and almost all the witnesses are examined and now, the case is posted for examination of Investigating Officer on 17.02.2021. She would further submit that since the petitioner did not appear before the Court at the time of trial, the learned Trial Judge was pleased to issue Non Bailable Warrant of arrest against him, pursuant to which, the petitioner was arrested on 09.11.2018 with great difficulty. She would submit that the respondents, after great difficulty, were able to secure the petitioner and at this stage, if the petitioner let out on bail, there are every chances of him getting absconded again and thereby, derailing the progress of trial.
5.Taking into consideration of the fact that the petitioner has absconded for the past 15 years, and if the petitioner is released on bail, he may be abscond, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
-sd/-
09/02/2021
This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned
TRUE COPY
Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104.
TO
1 THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
ERODE.
2 THE SUPERINTENDENT,
CENTRAL PRISON, COIMBATORE.
3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT, MADRAS.
4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
CHITHODE POLICE STATION,
ERODE DISTRICT.
CC to M/S.R.SANKARASUBBU Advocate on payment of necessary
charges
CRL OP.20774/2020
Date :09/02/2021
MK:12/02/2021
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to a petitioner who absconded for over 15 years and was subsequently arrested.
Whether the long pendency of the trial and the petitioner's history of non-appearance are grounds to deny bail.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Aathi @ Arunkumar
The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police
V. Bharathidasan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
