Madras High Court
P.Rajkumar vs The State Represented By on 2 August, 2023
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
(Criminal Jurisdiction)
Dated: 02/08/2023
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.OP(MD)No.13813 of 2023
P.Rajkumar : Petitioner/A5
Vs.
The State represented by
Inspector of Police,
Lalapet Police Station,
Karur District. : Respondent/Complainant
For Petitioner : Mr.L.K.Charles Alexander
For Respondent : Mr.B.Nambiselvan
Additional Public Prosecutor
PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.439 of Cr.P.C.
PRAYER:- For Bail in Crime No.399 of 2021 on the
file of the respondent police.
ORDER: The Court made the following order:-
The petitioner/A5, who arrested and remanded to
judicial custody, on 13/10/2021 for the offence
punishable under section 302 IPC @ 302, 341, 120(b), 148,
109 and 212 IPC, in Crime No.399 of 2021 on the file of
the respondent police, seeks bail.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2.The case of the prosecution is that the de-facto
complainant lodged a complaint stating that her husband
by name Gopal and Gopalakrishnan used to go to the field
for work. On 06/10/2021 at about 04.00 am, he went to
the field for work. At about 07.00 am, she was informed
that some one was lying in the field. She went to that
place and found her husband dead body with several
injuries. On the basis of the above said occurrence, a
case in Crime No.399 of 2021 initially for the offence
under section 302 IPC and subsequently, altered to
sections 302, 341, 120(b), 148, 109 and 212 IPC.
3.During the course of investigation, the
involvement of this petitioner was came to light. He was
arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 13/10/2021.
4.Facing trial process before the Principal District
and Sessions Judge, Karur. Several bail applications came
to be filed by this petitioner, during the course of
investigation as well as the during the course of trial.
All those applications came to be dismissed considering
the antecedents of the petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5.Now this petition has been filed on the ground
that even repeated directions issued by this to the trial
court to complete the trial process, it was not complied;
and ever-since from the date of arrest, the petitioner is
in custody and on the large period of incarceration, he
is entitled for bail.
6.Per contra, the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor would submit that the petitioner is not having
good conduct and involved in several cases numbering
about 25. According to him, among out of the 25 cases, in
some of the cases, he was arrested and some of the cases
still pending. Reading of long list indicates that he is
involved in more than two murder cases.
7.According to the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor, such a person is not entitled for any
discretionary relief at the fag end of the trial process.
8.Noting that repeated directions were issued by
this court to the trial court to complete the trial
process, it could not be completed. A detailed report has
been called for from the trial court. A detailed report
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
has also been submitted, wherein we see that the trial
was fixed on 09/01/2023. Now, totally 33 witnesses
examined as on 18/07/2023 and for further examination of
the witnesses, it was posted to 02/08/2023. Since, there
is a long list of witnesses to be examined, the trial
could not be completed within the stipulated time.
9.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
by relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation and another (Miscellanous Application No.
1849 of 2021 in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.5191 of
2021, dated 11/07/2022) would contend that pretrial
detention should not be taken as casually, which will
amount to punishment before the judgment. So, according
to him, the period of incarceration must be taken into
account by this court, while considering this bail
application.
10.No doubt that the petitioner is in incarceration
for sufficient time. But those criterias are not
sufficient enough to enlarge the petitioner on bail, more
particularly when the trial process is at the verge of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
conclusion. A detailed report has also been submitted by
the trial Judge mentioning the reason for the delay. The
prosecution cannot also be blamed for the delay. Various
factors are involved in it.
11.When the petitioner has already involved in
several previous cases, among which two murder cases are
also involved, if he is released on bail at this stage,
he may abscond. So, I find that this is not a fittest
case to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
12.In the result, I find no merit in this petition.
Accordingly, this criminal original petition stands
dismissed.
02/08/2023
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
er
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To,
1.The Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Karur.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Lalapet Police Station,
Karur District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.ILANGOVAN, J
er
Crl.OP(MD)No.13813 of 2023
02/08/2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
