Madras High Court
Saronraj @ Nagaraj vs State Rep. By on 26 September, 2024
Author: B.Pugalendhi
Bench: B.Pugalendhi
Crl.OP(MD)No.14215 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 26.09.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
Crl.OP(MD)No.14215 of 2024
Saronraj @ Nagaraj : Petitioner
Vs.
State Rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
Dindigul Town South Police Station,
Dindigul.
SC.No.132 of 2022 in Crime No.269 of 2016 : Respondent
PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 483 BNSS / 439 CrPC seeking bail in
respect of SC.No.132 of 2022 in Crime No.269 of 2016 on the file of the
Additional District Court, Dindigul.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Manikandan
For Respondent : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
*****
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)No.14215 of 2024
ORDER
The petitioner / first accused in Crime No.269 of 2016 on the file of
the respondent Police registered for the offence u/s.294(b), 323, 324, 302
IPC @ 342, 323, 506(ii), 302 r/w 34 IPC, has filed this application seeking
bail. In this case, the investigation has been completed and it has been
committed to the Additional District Court, Dindigul in SC.No.108 of 2016.
The petitioner / first accused was absconding and therefore, the case was
split up against the petitioner and pending in SC.No.132 of 2022.
2.This is the second application filed by the petitioner seeking bail.
The earlier application filed by him in Crl.OP(MD)No.4390 of 2024 was
dismissed by this Court on 02.04.2024, considering the objections raised by
the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that this petitioner was
absconding in the murder case for a period of four years and that one of the
eye witnesses to the case was murdered. While dismissing the earlier bail
application, this Court directed the trial Court to examine the eye witnesses
within three months and also granted liberty to this petitioner to renew the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
bail application. Hence, the petitioner has now filed this second bail
application.
3.Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that all the eye
witnesses in the case in SC.No.132 of 2022 were already examined and that
the official witnesses alone have to be examined. He further submitted that
the occurrence had taken place on a sudden provocation and this petitioner
is languishing in the prison for more than a year from 21.06.2023. He
further submitted that the trial in the original case in SC.No.108 of 2016 was
completed and the fourth accused was acquitted by the trial Court, by
judgment dated 07.01.2023. Therefore, he prayed for bail.
4.Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) raised serious objections
for grant of bail to this petitioner that he is the main accused (A1) and he
was absconding in this case from 01.12.2020. Therefore, the case as against
him was split up. The petitioner and his associates have murdered one
Kathar Ali, who is the LW1 in this case, on 04.09.2017, for which, another
case was registered in Crime No.373 of 2017, for the offence u/s.147, 148,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
341, 294(b), 307 IPC @ 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 302 r/w 149 IPC. This case in
Crime No.373 of 2017 was also charge sheeted and taken on file by the
learned Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul, in PRC.No.1 of 2018. However, it is
still pending for committal for the past six years, since one after the other
accused are absconding.
5.The petitioner and the other accused in a murder case [in Crime No.
269 of 2016] have committed another murder by eliminating LW1 in the
said case, for which, another case was registered in Crime No.373 of 2017.
This second case registered in Crime No.373 of 2017 is also pending at the
stage of committal proceedings in PRC.No.1 of 2018 for the past six years. It
appears that the petitioner was arrested on 21.06.2023. It is not known as to
why the case has not been committed, even after the arrest of the petitioner.
Therefore, this Court, by earlier order dated 06.09.2024, called for a report
from the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Dindigul as to the reasons for non-
committal of the case in PRC.No.1 of 2018 from the year 2018 and also a
report from the Inspector General of Police, South Zone, Madurai, in this
regard.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6.Learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Dindigul, has filed a report
stating that the accused, one after another, were absconding and therefore,
the case was not committed. She further submitted that steps have now
been taken and the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions on
09.09.2024, with a direction to the accused to appear before the Sessions
Court on 21.09.2024.
7.The Inspector General of Police, South Zone, in his report has stated
that PRC.No.1 of 2018 could not be committed because of non-appearance
of the accused and the repeated filing of petition u/s.317 CrPC. The
Inspector General of Police has also enclosed the diary extracts of the Court
of Judicial Magistrate No.III in PRC.No.1 of 2018.
8.Perusal of the diary extract reveals that the concerned Magistrate
was very liberal in considering the application filed u/s.317 CrPC. The
accused have repeatedly filed petitions u/s.317 CrPC and they were also
considered in a mechanical manner, without having any concern to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
nature of case in PRC.No.1 of 2018 [Crime No.373 of 2017], which was
registered for the murder of LW1 in Crime No.269 of 2016.
9.Nearly after six years, the case has now been committed, only after
this Court has raised some queries. It is not known as to when the trial
would commence in this case; whether the accused would be available for
the trial; and whether the trial would be concluded within a reasonable
time. Even the case for the first murder committed by the petitioner in
Crime No.296 of 2016 is still pending in SC.No.132 of 2022 [originally
SC.No.108 of 2016]. It appears that after the elimination of LW1, one of the
accused in SC.No.108 of 2016 has got an acquittal and the petitioner has
now taken it as a ground for grant of bail. If this is how the trials are
conducted, naturally, then all the accused have to be acquitted and no
witness would come forward to depose as against the accused.
10.Mere registering of a case and filing of final report is not enough.
The respondent Police shall also ensure that the witnesses are protected
and that the witnesses depose before the Court without any fear or threat.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
In this case, the blame should not be fastened on the respondent Police
alone. The Judiciary has, equally, failed in its duty by not committing the
second case for the past six years. The concerned Magistrates, who dealt
with the case in PRC.No.1 of 2018, were very liberal in considering the
applications filed u/s.317 CrPC. Because of this conduct of the Magistrates
in entertaining this application in such a manner, the second murder case in
Crime No.373 of 2017, which was charge sheeted in the year 2018, was kept
pending without any committal till 2024. The Magistrates must realize that
the Court is also having certain responsibility and duty towards the
victims.
11.An eye witness in a murder case was murdered, for which, the
learned Magistrate has delayed the committal proceedings for over a
period of six years. If this is the state of affairs, then no witness would have
the moral courage to appear before the Court during the trial and depose as
against the accused. This needs to be addressed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
12.The Superintendent of Police, during their weekly / monthly
review meetings, ought to have followed-up the long pending cases, which
are at the stage of PRC and at trial. The Superintendent of Police has failed
in his duty and therefore, this Court, instead of calling for a report from the
concerned Superintendent of Police, has directed the Inspector General of
Police, South Zone, to file a report for the delay in committal proceedings in
PRC.No.1 of 2018. The Inspector General of Police has realized the
deficiency on their part and has also submitted before this Court that all the
Sub Divisional Officers are directed to review the PRC stage pending cases
and to ensure committal of those cases. He has also stated that in cases of
NBWs pending, special teams will be formed to nab the absconding
accused. This Court places its appreciation to the Inspector General of
Police, South Zone, for the initiative taken to ensure that there will not be
any further delay in the committal proceedings in any case.
13.When we are blaming the investigation agency that they are not
executing the warrants in time, we have to accept our mistake in
entertaining the petitions filed u/s.317 CrPC in a causal manner, that too, at
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the stage of committal / trial. In any event, the Police have now responded
and assured that this type of delay would be avoided in future. Similar
steps have to be taken by the Judiciary also. Therefore, the Registrar
General, Madras High Court, is directed to call for an explanation from the
concerned Magistrates, who have dealt with the case in PRC.No.1 of 2018
from 22.10.2018 till 25.03.2024.
14.The Registrar General, Madras High Court, shall also issue a
Circular to all the Judicial Magistrates to handle the petitions filed u/s.355
BNSS [317 CrPC] during the committal proceedings with certain
responsibility, or otherwise, necessary actions would be initiated as against
the concerned Magistrates. The Registrar General shall also remind the
Magistrates about the provisions u/s.232 BNSS that the committal
proceedings has to be concluded within a period of ninety days [in
exceptional cases – 180 days].
15.Though this Court has permitted the petitioner to renew this
application after the examination of the eye witnesses, from the report of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the Inspector General of Police, South Zone, it appears that some more
witnesses are yet to be examined in Crime No.269 of 2016. Considering the
manner in which the eye witness in Crime No.269 of 2016 was eliminated
and the conduct of the accused in evading the committal proceedings in the
second case in PRC No.1 of 2018 [Crime No.373 of 2017] for the past six
years, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to this petitioner in SC.No.132
of 2022 in Crime No.269 of 2016.
Accordingly, this criminal original petition stands dismissed.
Internet : Yes 26.09.2024
gk
Note:
Mark a copy of this order to
The Registrar General,
Madras High Court.
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
Dindigul Town South Police Station,
Dindigul.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2.The Additional District Judge,
Dindigul.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
gk
26.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
