Madras High Court
R.Gokul Raj vs The State Rep. By on 8 September, 2022
CRL A No.1043 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08.09.2022
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
Criminal Appeal No.1043 of 2022
R.Gokul Raj ... Appellant
Vs.
1. The State Rep. by
The Deputy Superintendent of Police
Vanthavasi Range
Kilkodungalore Police Station
Tiruvannamalai
(Crime No.168 of 2022)
2. J.Jayaraman ... Respondents
Prayer : Criminal Appeal filed under Section 14(A)(2) of SC/ST Act, praying
to set aside the order passed by the learned Special District and Sessions
Court SC/ST Case at Tiruvannamalai in Crl.M.P.No.889 of 2022 on
12.08.2022 and enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.168 of 2022 on the
file of 1st respondent pending investigation.
For Petitioner :Mr.K.Karthik
For Respondent-1 : Mr.S.Sugendran
Additional Public Prosecutor
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL A No.1043 of 2022
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal has been filed seeking to set aside the order
passed by the Special District and Sessions Court SC/ST Cases,
Tiruvannamalai, in Crl.M.P.No.889 of 2022 dated 12.08.2022 and
consequently release the appellant on bail in respect of the case in Crime
No.168 of 2022, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b),
341, 323, IPC read with Sections 3(i) (x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)
Amendment Act 2015 @ into Sections 294(b), 341, 323, 302 of IPC read
with Section 3(2) (v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act
2015.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant along with other
accused committed the murder of the son of the defacto complainant by
attacking him brutally.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the name of
the appellant is not found in the FIR and there is no specific overt act against
the appellant and only based on the confession statement of A1, the appellant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL A No.1043 of 2022
has been arrayed as A3. He would further submit that the learned Sessions
Judge has failed to consider the above said facts and dismissed the application
in Crl.M.P.No.889 of 2022 by order dated 12.08.2022, filed by the appellant
seeking bail. He would further submit that the appellant was arrested on
12.07.2022 and he has been in judicial custody for more than 55 days. Hence,
he would pray for grant of bail.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondent police objected for grant of bail to the appellant.
5. Hear the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional
Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent and perused the materials on
records.
6. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the
appellant's name is not found in the FIR and he has been implicated only
based on the confession statement given by one of the co-accused. Though
the appellant's name is not found in the FIR, it is pre-matured stage to say as
to whether, the appellant is involved in this crime or not. Further, there is no
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL A No.1043 of 2022
eye witness in this case and hence, we need not give any importance to the
non mentioning of the name in the FIR. In this case the informant is not an
eye witness. Though based on the confession of the co-accused, the petitioner
has been implicated in this case, the subsequent alteration report clearly
shows the involvement of the appellant. Hence, considering the serious nature
of offence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail.
7. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
08.09.2022
ksa-2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL A No.1043 of 2022
To
1. The Special District and Sessions Court SC/ST Case, Tiruvannamalai
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police
Vanthavasi Range
Kilkodungalore Police Station
Tiruvannamalai
3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
4. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL A No.1043 of 2022
P.VELMURUGAN, J
ksa-2
Criminal Appeal No.1043 of 2022
08.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
