Madras High Court
Satheeshkumar vs State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By on 22 October, 2024
Crl.A(MD)No.797 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 22.10.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.A(MD)No.797 of 2024
1.Satheeshkumar
2.Parthiban ... Appellants/Petitioners/
Accused 1 & 2
Vs.
1.State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
Suthamalli Police Station,
Tirunelveli District.
(Crime No.148 of 2022) ... 1st Respondent/Complainant
2.Nagaraj ... 2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant
Prayer : This Appeal is filed under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes
and the Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989, as amended by Act 1 of 2016, to call for
the records pertaining to the order dated 09.09.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.3042 of
2024 on the file of II Additional Sessions Judge (PCR), Tirunelveli and to set
aside the same and enlarge the appellant in connection with Crime No.148 of
2022 on the file of the 1st respondent police.
For appellants : Mr.V.Vijayendiran
For R1 : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
Crl.A(MD)No.797 of 2024
For R2 : Mr.A.John Vincent
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, learned
Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the first respondent and the
learned counsel for the second respondent.
2.This Criminal Appeal has been filed to set aside the order, dated
09.09.2024 made in Cr.M.P.No.3042 of 2024 on the file of the II Additional
Sessions Judge (PCR), Tirunelveli and enlarge the appellants on bail in
connection with Crime No.148 of 2024 on the file of the 2nd respondent.
3.The facts in brief:
The appellants, are facing charges for the offences punishable
under Sections 294(b), 302 of IPC r/w Sections 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA)
Act, in Crime No.148 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police, before the
trial Court in S.C.No.112 of 2022. During the course of trial the appellants
remained absent on 04.07.2024. So they were secured on 18.08.2024. Seeking
bail, they moved the trial Court in Crl.M.P.NO.3042 of 2024, which came to
be dismissed by the trial court stating that if the appellants are released on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
bail, there is every likelihood of absconding and so it dismissed the same.
Against which this appeal has been preferred.
4.Lengthy argument was advanced on the side of the defacto
complainant stating that there is no reason and proper motive, suspected that
the first deceased was responsible for the arrest of this appellant by the police,
he was done to death. It was followed by the murder of his brother also in the
same course of transaction. If the appellants are released on bail, then
possibility of threat to the remaining witnesses. So according to him, at least
till the examination of the material witness are all over, the bail should not be
granted.
5.Per contra, the learned counsel for the appellants would submit that
only for one hearing, he could not appear before the trial court due to his ill-
health. Even though, he informed his counsel to file proper application under
Section 317 of Cr.P.C., but, he omitted. Within a month he was secured.
Before that he was regularly appearing before the trial Court and also co-
operating. So considering the same bail must be granted.
6.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
submit that the first and second appellants are facing several cases.
Considering the bad antecedents, if the appellants are released on bail, then
they may abscond, hampering the further trial process.
7.It is a case of double murder. Even though it is stated that the
appellants were regularly appearing before the trial court during the course of
trial, the fact remains that they were secured only on execution of warrant.
Considering the bad antecedents, it appears that again they may abscond,
hampering the further trial process. As contended by the defacto complainant
the appellants can move bail application before the trial court itself after
completion of the material witnesses are over.
8.In the meantime, report was called for from the trial court as to the
stage of the trial process. Report submitted, which shows that PW1 and PW2
were examined in chief and the matter was posted for cross examination. The
appellants' counsel stated that they are applied for CCTV footage copy. So
cross examination must be differed. But, that was not accepted by the trial
court. So the case was adjourned to 20.06.2024. Both accused were absent.
Warrant was issued. It was executed and remanded to judicial custody on
08.08.2024. Now the case is posted to 25.10.2024 for further evidence.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Reading of the report also suggests that the accused are not co-operating
properly. On that ground also the appellants are not entitled for any relief as
claimed by him. Appeal fails.
9.Accordingly, this criminal appeal stands dismissed.
22.10.2024
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
TM
To
1.The II Additional Sessions Judge (PCR), Tirunelveli.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Suthamalli Police Station,
Tirunelveli District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.ILANGOVAN,J.
TM
22.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
