Madras High Court
P.Gopi @ Gopinath vs The Assistant Commissioner Of ... on 17 November, 2021
Crl.A.(MD)No.442 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATE : 17.11.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. THARANI
Crl.A.(MD)No.442 of 2021
P.Gopi @ Gopinath .. Appellant
Vs.
State rep. by,
1.The Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Tallakulam Sub-Division,
Koodal Pudhur Police Station,
Madurai City.
(In Crime No.212 of 2021)
2.Arumugam .. Respondents
Prayer : This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 14A (2) of Scheduled
Caste/Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989, as amended by Act 1 of 2015, to set aside
the order of the III- Additional District Judge for PCR Act Cases, Madurai, in
Crl.M.P.No.966 of 2021, dated 27.08.2021 and to enlarge the appellant on
bail in Crime No.212 of 2021, on the file of the first respondent police.
For Appellant : Mr.M.Jegadeesh Pandian
For R1 : Mr.K.Sanjay Gandhi
Government Advocate
For R2 : R.Alagumani
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD)No.442 of 2021
JUDGMENT
This Appeal has been filed to set aside the order of the III
Additional District Judge for PCR Act cases, Madurai in Crl.M.P.No.966 of
2021, dated 27.08.2021 and to enlarge the appellant on bail in Crime No.212
of 2021 on the file of the first respondent police.
2.The case of the prosecution is that there is some motive between
the deceased-Praveenkumar and one Muruganantham @ Anand. On
14.07.2021, at atbout 10.00 am., Muruganantham and others took
Praveenkumar from his house and subsequently, he was found dead. A case
was registered against six persons, in Crime No.212 of 2021, under Section
147, 149, 302 of I.P.C and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA)
Act. The appellant himself surrendered before the Peraiyur Judicial
Magistrate and he was taken into police custody on 02.08.2021 till
04.08.2021. The appellant filed a bail petition in Cr.M.P.No.966 of 2021
before the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai. That petition
was dismissed by the Sessions Judge. Against the same, the appellant has
preferred this Appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD)No.442 of 2021
3.On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the complaint was
only against six persons and the name of the appellant is not found place in
the F.I.R. Based on the confession statement of the arrested accused, the
appellant was impleaded in the case. It is wrong to state that the appellant
instigated the others to commit the offence. The appellant has no motive
against the deceased. Except the confession, there is no materials available
against the appellant. Final report was already filed and the co-accused were
already enlarged on bail. Pendency of previous case cannot be a ground for
dismissing a bail petition. The appellant is having medical problems (Urine
Bladder Bulge) and he is taking treatment and prayed the appellant to be
released on bail.
4. On the side of the prosecution, it is stated that F.I.R was
registered against six un-named persons and the appellant was impleaded as
the seventh accused. Eight previous cases, including another murder case, are
pending against the appellant. Charge sheet was filed on 25.08.2021 and the
same was taken on file as C.C.No.173 of 2021. The complainant is facing life
threat and if the appellant is released on bail, he may tamper the witnesses.
The occurrence has taken place only due to the communal hatred and prayed
the appeal to be dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD)No.442 of 2021
5. On the side of the second respondent/ defacto complainant, it is
stated that a gruesome murder has been committed in this case. The motive is
only communal hatred. The defacto complainant and his family members are
in danger. If the appellant is released on bail there may be life threat for the
defacto complainant and his family members.
6. It is seen that the appellant voluntarily surrendered before the
Court on 22.07.2021. The investigation was already over and the charge sheet
was filed and the same was taken on file as C.C.No.173 of 2021. It is seen
that the appellant is having previous cases and both the private respondent and
the prosecution are having objection stating that there is a life threat to the
complainant and his family members. It is seen that co-accused were released
only on statutory bail.
7. Considering the previous antecedents of the appellant and
considering the seriousness of the offence and also considering the
representation made by the defacto complainant, this Court is not inclined to
release the appellant on bail, at the present situation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD)No.442 of 2021
8. Hence, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
17.11.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Ls
Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID – 19 pandemic, a
web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that
the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the advocate / litigant concerned.
To
1.The III-Additional District Judge for PCR Act Cases,
Madurai.
2.The Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Tallakulam Sub-Division,
Koodal Pudhur Police Station,
Madurai City.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD)No.442 of 2021
R.THARANI, J.
Ls
Crl.A.(MD)No.442 of 2021
17.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
