Madras High Court
Malaikolunthu vs State Through on 3 January, 2024
Crl.A.(MD)No.1026 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 08.12.2023
Pronounced on : 03.01.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VADAMALAI
Crl.A.(MD)No.1026 of 2023
Malaikolunthu ... Appellant / Accused No.3
Vs.
1.State through
The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Melur Sub Division,
Madurai District.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Melavalavu Police Station,
Madurai District.
(Crime No.39 of 2020) ... 1st & 2nd Respondents/Complainants
3.Lakshmanan ... 2nd Respondent/De-facto Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 14(A)(2) of SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015, to call for the records relating to the
impugned order passed in Crl.M.P.No.3194 of 2023, dated 25.10.2023 on the
file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Madurai District
and set aside the same as illegal and arbitrary and enlarge the
appellant/Accused No.3 in Crime No.39 of 2020 on the file of the respondent
on bail by allowing the appeal.
Page 1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD)No.1026 of 2023
For Appellant : Mr.V.Kathirvelu
Senior Counsel
For R1 & R2 : Mr.B.Nambi Selvan
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R3 : Mr.KR.Bharathi Kannan
JUDGMENT
The appellant has filed this Criminal Appeal to set aside the
impugned order dated 25.10.2023 made in Crl.M.P.No.3194 of 2023 on the file
of the III Additional District and Sessions Court (PCR), Madurai and to enlarge
the appellant on bail by allowing this appeal.
2.The brief facts of the prosecution case:
The appellant is Accused No.3 in this case. There was a civil dispute
between the defacto complainant and the accused persons. The Civil Court
granted relief in favour of the defacto complainant and hence, on 24.02.2020
he installed boundary stones demarking his property in the presence of
government officials. At that time, the appellant along with co-accused came
there armed with deadly weapons and trespassed into the land of the defacto
complainant and attacked the defacto complainant and his friend Suresh with
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
abusive words mentioning the case of Suresh. Hence, the case was registered
against the accused persons in Crime No.39 of 2020 by respondent police for
the offence under Sections 147, 148, 447, 341, 294(b), 323, 324, 307, 379 of
IPC r/w 3 (2) (va) of SC/ST Act. The respondent police did investigation and
laid charge sheet against the accused and the same was taken on cognizance in
Spl.S.C.No.25 of 2021 by the Trial Court. Already the appellant was granted
bail and the same was cancelled. Again the appellant, who is Accused No.3
filed the petition in Crl.M.P.No.3194 of 2023 for bail before the Trial Court and
the same was dismissed as per order dated 25.10.2023.
3. Aggrieved by the dismissal of bail petition, the appellant preferred the
present Criminal Appeal before this Court.
4. Heard both sides and perused the records in this Criminal Appeal.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant
is arrayed as Accused No.3. There are 5 named and 8 unnamed accused in this
case. Out of them, Accused Nos. 6 to 10, 12 & 13 filed Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17148
of 2021 and the proceedings against them were quashed by this Court. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
appellant already filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.445 of 2020 before the trial
Court seeking bail, which was opposed by the injured Suresh, however bail
was granted to him and other accused. Taking animosity, the injured Suresh
was murdered by some other accused. So, the bail was cancelled by this Court
in Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.10559 of 2020 and 10561 of 2020 filed by the defacto
complainant. Then the appellant filed SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court
wherein the appellant was directed to file bail petition before the trial Court.
The appellant filed Crl.M.P.No.1798 of 2023 for bail and it was dismissed on
22.06.2023 and appeal in Crl.A(MD)No.499 of 2023 filed by the appellant was
also dismissed by this Court on the ground that the appellant involved in the
case in which the injured was murdered. Again the appellant filed the petition
in Crl.M.P.No.3194 of 2023 before the trial Court and it was dismissed on
25.10.2023 on the ground that the appellant involved in subsequent murder
case and also there was danger to the life of the defacto complainant and also
already bail was negatived by the Hon’ble High Court. Actually, the appellant
is not involved in subsequent murder case. The Investigating Officer laid
charge sheet and the same was taken on cognizance and hence, there is no
question of tampering witnesses by the appellant. Therefore, the appeal may be
allowed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondents 1 and 2 strongly opposed to grant bail to the appellant stating that
the appellant involved in heinous nature of crime and also the injured Suresh
who opposed bail was murdered. This Court already discussed elaborately in
Crl.A.(MD)No.499 of 2023 and passed order. This Court has also elaborately
discussed the facts of this case directed for early disposal of main case in
Spl.S.C.No.25 of 2021. Further, this Court has clearly held in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.
17148 of 2021 filed by Accused Nos.6 to 10, 12 and 13 for quash of
proceedings that the named Accused Nos.1 to 5 would not take advantage of
the quash order and Accused Nos.1 to 5 had to contest the trial entirely on
merits and they could not place any reliance on that order. But, the appellant
and other accused dragged on the proceedings of the case and even the
appellant/Accused No.3 and co-accused/Accused Nos.1, 2, 4 and 11 refused to
receive 207 copies which would establish from the 'B' diary of the case for the
hearing 06.10.2023. There is no change in circumstances. The trial Court has
correctly passed the impugned order.
7. The learned counsel for the defacto complainant submitted that since
the witnesses faced life threat after grant of bail and also the injured Suresh,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
who earlier opposed bail, was murdered by the accused after enlarging bail, the
bail cancellation was ordered. The appellant did not comply with the bail
conditions and if the appellant is granted bail he would threaten and tamper the
witnesses. The appellant’s relief of bail was negatived by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court and this Court directed for early disposal of the main case. The interest
of the witnesses is also to be taken into consideration. Hence, he strongly
opposed for granting bail to the appellant. In support of his contention, the
learned counsel relied on citation reported in (2019) 14 SCC 615 (Mahender
Chawla and Others Vs. Union of India and Others)
8. On hearing both side rival arguments and on perusal of records, it is
clear that the appellant in this case is arrayed as Accused No.3. The
Investigating Officer laid charge sheet and the same was taken on file by the
trial Court as Spl.S.C.No.25 of 2021. It is admitted that the bail already granted
to the appellant was cancelled by this Court and the same was confirmed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, however directing the appellant to approach the trial
Court for bail. It is also admitted by both side that the main Spl.S.C.No.25of
2021 has to be disposed within stipulated time. On perusal of records, this
Court passed order dated 21.02.2022 in Crl.O.P.No.17148of 2021 while
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
allowing the said petition, specifically directed the Accused Nos.1 to 5 would
not take advantage of quash order and also they have to contest the trial
entirely on merits and the Accused Nos.1 to 5 also filed memo to that effect.
9. The injured in this case namely Suresh was murdered by the other
accused after grant of bail. So, the contention of the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor and the counsel for defacto complainant that there is life threat to
the witness cannot be brushed aside. The contention of the appellant that as he
is not involved in subsequent case, is not a valid ground for granting bail. On
perusal of records, it is revealed that the appellant refused to receive the 207
Cr.P.C. copies though he was produced before the trial Court. Hence, the
contention of the defcato complainant that the accused is dragging the case
proceedings has some force.
10. The appellant has not disclosed any changed circumstances or any
valid reason for grant of bail. The earlier bail granted to the appellant was
cancelled by this Court and was confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as
the witness of this case was murdered subsequently. The trial Court has
correctly dismissed the bail by passing the impugned order. Considering the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
gravity of the offence and heinous nature of crime and subsequent murder of
witness, this Court is not inclined to grant bail.
11. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
03.01.2024
NCC :Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
VSD
To
1.The III Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR),
Madurai District.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Melur Sub Division, Madurai District.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Melavalavu Police Station,
Madurai District.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
5.The Section Officer,
Criminal Section (Records),
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
P.VADAMALAI, J.
VSD
Pre - Delivery Order made in
03.01.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
