Madras High Court
C.Vijayakumar vs Superintendent Of Police on 6 June, 2023
CRL.A.NO.550 OF 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.06.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. SIVAGNANAM
CRL.A.NO.550 OF 2023
C.Vijayakumar ... Appellant
Vs.
The State rep by its
1.Superintendent of Police
Salem District.
2.The Inspector of Police
Panamarathupatti Police Station
Salem District.
Crime No.02/2023
3.Kalaiyarasi ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 14A of Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 r/w. Amended Act 2015
to set aside the order in Cr.M.P.No.1155/2023 passed by the Principal Sessions
Judge, Salem, dated 27.04.2023 and enlarge the petitioner / accused on bail.
For Appellant : Ms.S.Premakumari
For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan
1 and 2 Additional Public Prosecutor
For Respondent 3 : Mr.G.Munuraj
JUDGMENT
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.NO.550 OF 2023
This Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the appellant against
the dismissal order dated 27.04.2023 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1155 of 2023 by
the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Salem and to release him on bail.
2.The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the second
respondent police registered a case against the appellant in Crime No.2 of 2023
for the offences punishable under Sections 302 IPC r/w 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and
3(2)(va) of ST / ST (POA) Act in pursuance of a compliant given by the wife of
the deceased Iyyappan on 05.01.2023. Initially, a case has been registered
under Section 174 Cr.P.C., and subsequently, the same was altered into Section
302 IPC. There is no eyewitness to the alleged occurrence. He further submitted
that there is no specific overtact against the appellant in the complaint and his
name has not been mentioned in the FIR. But he was arrested and remanded to
judicial custody on 20.02.2023. Since there is no specific overtact against this
appellant, he has to be released on bail. However, the Trial Court has failed to
consider the same and dismissed the petition filed for grant of bail. The said
order is under challenge in this Criminal Appeal.
3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents 1
and 2 fairly submitted that in this case, there is no eye witness, direct evidence
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.NO.550 OF 2023
to connect the accused to the crime, but there are only circumstantial evidence
available. He further submitted that the wife of the accused had illicit
relationship with the deceased, which is the strong motive and in order to wreck
vengeance, the appellant / accused murdered the deceased, which is supported
by the post-mortem report, wherein the Doctor had opined that “the deceased
would appear to have died of aspyxis due to compression of neck and
consumption of prosferos poisoning with ethyl alcohol”. Under these
circumstances, there is a strong circumstantial evidence against the appellant
and hence, he strongly objected to grant bail to the appellant and pleaded to
dismiss the present appeal.
4.The learned counsel for the third respondent / defacto
complainant supported the arguments of the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor and submitted that there is a land dispute between the accused and
the deceased and hence, there is a strong motive for the commission of offence
by the accused / appellant. Hence, he strongly opposed to enlarge the appellant
on bail.
5.I have considered the submissions made on either side and
perused the materials available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.NO.550 OF 2023
6.On perusal of the records and FIR and other materials, the facts
reveals that the second respondent police registered a case against the appellant
in Crime No.2 of 2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 IPC r/w
3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of ST / ST (POA) Act in pursuance of a compliant
given by the wife of the deceased Iyyappan on 05.01.2023. In the said
complaint, it is alleged that on 05.01.2023 at about 02.30 pm., the defacto
complainant was informed by one Kandhasamy that her husband Iyyappan was
found lying in the agricultural land of one Chinnapaiyan and she immediately
went to the place and found her husband died and also found an empty
GENESIS pesticides bottle near his body. Immediately, he was taken to the
hospital and subsequently, she lodged a complaint before the second respondent
police. The post-mortem report reveals that “the deceased would appear to
have died of aspyxis due to compression of neck and consumption of
prosferos poisoning with ethyl alcohol”. Under these circumstances, it is clear
that the deceased was murdered. But, in this case, there is no eye witness and
no direct evidence and the prosecution relied upon only circumstantial evidence
against the accused / appellant and also the deceased had illicit relationship with
the wife of the accused / appellant. Apart from this, there is some land dispute
between the accused and the deceased family. In the absence of any direct
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.NO.550 OF 2023
evidence and also the fact that the prosecution had relied upon only
circumstantial evidence and the accused is in custody from 20.02.2023, I am
inclined to grant bail to the appellant.
7.Accordingly, the impugned order dated 27.04.2023 passed in
Crl.M.P.No.1155 of 2023 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Salem, is
hereby set aside and bail is granted to the appellant and the appellant is ordered
to be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees
Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each, for the like sum before the learned
Judicial Magistrate No.1, Salem.
(a) the sureties shall affix their photographs and
left thumb impression in the surety bond and the above
said Court may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or
Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;
(b) the appellant shall not tamper with evidence
or witness either during investigation or trial;
(c) the appellant is directed to appear before the
Trial Court on the first working day of every month at
10.30 am until further orders.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.NO.550 OF 2023
(d) the appellant shall not abscond either during
investigation or trial;
(e) on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions,
the Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action
against the appellant in accordance with law as if the
conditions have been imposed and the appellant
released on bail by the Trial Court himself as laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji Vs. State of
Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560]; and;
(f) if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR
can be registered under Section 229-A IPC.
7.With the above directions, this Criminal Appeal is allowed.
06.06.2023
Internet : Yes/No
TK
To
1.The Principal Sessions Judge
Salem.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.NO.550 OF 2023
2.The Superintendent of Police
Salem District.
3.The Inspector of Police
Panamarathupatti Police Station
Salem District.
4.The Public Prosecutor
High Court of Madras.
5.The Superintendent
Central Jail
Salem.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.NO.550 OF 2023
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
TK
CRL.A.NO.550 OF 2023
06.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
