PAKKIRAMMAL v. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE & Ors.

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT( Criminal Jurisdiction )Wednesday, the Nineteenth day of January Two Thousand ElevenPRESENTThe Hon`ble Mr.Justice C.T.SELVAMCRL OP(MD) No.362 of 2011PAKKIRAMMAL ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED Vs1. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE CB CID., MADURAI UNIT, MADURAI.2. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, L & O VADIPATTI POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT. CR.NO.794 OF 2010. ... RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTA.SAIBUNISHA.. INTERVENOR(IN M.P.(MD) NO.1 OF 2011For Petitioner : M/S. A.SHIV KUMAR AdvocateFor Respondent : MR.P.RAJENDRAN, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side)For Intervenor : MR.VEERAKATHIRAVAN, Learned Counsel for the intervenor. PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C.ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-The petitioner is the accused and she was remanded to judicialcustody on 01.12.2010 for the alleged offence punishable under Sections120B, 115, 201, 118, 364, 366A & 302 r/w 34 I.P.C. in Crime No.794 of2010 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seeks bail.2.Heard Mr.A.Shivakumar, learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner and Mr.Veerakathiravan, learned counsel for the intervenor andMr.P.Rajendran, learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for thestate.3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that thepetitioner is the 10th accused in the case and the same is pendinginvestigation in Crime No.794 of 2010, on the file of the Inspector ofPolice, CBCID, Madurai Unit, Madurai, since transferred under the orderof this Court in Crl.O.P.NO.15143 of 2010 for investigation by the CBCIDPolice, Ramanad District. This is a case relating to the death of threepersons, a lady named Adilabanu, aged about 24 years and her two childrenaged 7 and 5 years. 4.The prosecution case is informed in the counter filed by the Stateas follows:"(ii) On 09.11.2010 at 09.30 hrs on the report ofTmt.Saibunisha, W/0.Abubucker Siddiq Pallivasal Street,Sattunkulam Ramanathapuram District regarding missing of herdaughter Adila Banu with her two children from their house from08.11.2010 evening the case in Kenikarai Police Station https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Cr.No.500/2010 under "Women missing" was registered. On11.11.2010 evening the complainant Saibunisha identified thethree dead bodies at the mortuary of GRH Madurai. Theinvestigation disclosed that there was a faction between oneSeenikatti group and Ramali group at Sattankulam village withinthe jurisdiction of Kenikarai Police Station. On 14.05.2002 oneMohemed Jinna belonging to Seenikatti group was murdered by themembers of Ramali gang in Kenikarai PS Cr.No.200/02 u/s 147,148, 323, 324 and 302 IPC and one Muthusamy, S/o Muthu ofKuppanvalasai employed as driver under Seenikatti was an eyewitness to the murder. During the year 2002, the deceased AdilaBanu was married to Mujbeer Rahuman of Sattankulam andsubsequently she divorced him and developed illicit intimacywith Muthusamy and in the year 2003 Seenikatti conducted themarriage of Adila Banu with his driver Muthusamy by convertinghim into Islam. Though the mother of the deceased Adila Banuinitially did not approve the marriage later they were united.Then the deceased Adila Banu went to Malaysia with her husbandMuthusamy @ Ahemad and they were working in the hotel run by herbrother. Then Muthusamy @ Ahemad came to Ramanathapuram withhis deceased wife Adila Banu and he turned hostile in the murdercase in Kenikarali PS Cr.No.200/02. When Muthusamy @ Ahemadwent back to Malaysia, he was beaten by the accused SahulHanmeed for turning hostile in the murder case. The deceasedAila Banu came to know that her husabnd was beaten by theaccused Sahul Hameed and she was going on telling that she wouldwreak vengeance against those responsible for the assault of herhusband and particularly told the accused Jeyakumar. When theaccused Sahul Hammed came to Ramanathapuram from Malaysia aboutone month prior to the occurrence, the accused Jeyakumar toldhim that Adila Banu was going on telling that she would avengethe assault against her husband by Sahul Ahmeed who in turninformed Pakkirammal, Ramjan Beevei and Jailanee and Manivannan.They hatched a plot to eliminate Adila Banu. On 08.11.2010evening in pursuance of criminal conspiracy, the accusedJeyakumar solicited the deceased Adila Banu to gas godown atMadurai-Ramnad road for giving his gas cylinder as required byher and when she came there with her two children they weretaken in a Maruthi car TN 65 K 3288 and as planned the accusedSahul Hameed, Manivannan, Mohamed Hasarath, Tameemul Ansari andMuniasamy were waiting in a Scorpio car TN 65 K 2223 driven bythe accused Yasin S/o Mohamed Ibrahim en-route gas godown. Onseeing the Maruthi car the accused Mohamed Hasarath and TameemulAnsari got into the Maruthi car and it was followed by Scorpiocar. The deceased and her children were shifted to the Scorpiocar and the accused Muniasamy and Yasin were relieved with theMaruthi car. The deceased were taken to Pattinamkathan and oneSheik Thagajeth @ Sudani joined with them and at about 19.30 hrsthe car proceeded to Sathankulam Vilakku and the accused bet thedeceased Adila Banu and she cried. The accused Sheik Jagajeth @Sudani strangled the deceased Adila Banu with her "thuppatta"while other accused caught hold of her arms and smothered withpillow to death. Likewise he smothered the two children todeath with pillow. At about 20.30 hrs the accused took thebodies of the deceased in the car to Sattankulam and borrowedthe spade from one Thangavel Karpoora Vilasai and buried thedead bodies in the coconut grove of the accused https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Pakkiriammal/petitioner and the accused Sheik Jagajeth @ Sudaniremoved the 7 sovereign gold jewels from the body of thedeceased Adila Banu and the accused informed the accusedPakkirammal about the murder committed in pursuance of theirconspiracy. The accused went to the house of Muniasamy andasked him not to disclose the occurrence to anybody. The motherof Adila Banu found her with her children missing and lodged thecomplaint at Kenikarai police station.(iii) On 10.11.2010 the accused Sahul Hameed, Manivannan,Mohamed Harsath went to Chennai by bus. Accused Pakkirammalcontacted the accused Sahul Hameed and asked him to shift thedead bodies from her coconut tope fearing detection by thepolice. Therefore, they returned to Madurai by flight withMohamed Harsath and took the accused Shanavaz the student ofYadava college and reached Paramakudi and took the Tata Sumo carbelonging to the accused Jailanee the second wife of Seenikattiof Ramanathapuram and came to Ramanathapuram with the accusedTameenmul Ansari, Sheik Thagazeth @ Sudani and Nagore Hussainand at about 11 PM they purchased two dhotis in the cloth shop.All the above accused went to the coconut tope and exhumed thethree bodies and bundled the dead body of the deceased AdilaBanu in a dhoti and dead bodies of two children in another dhotiand took them in the Tata Sumo car TN 65 F 3999. They threw thedead body of Adila Banu in the stream under the culvert nearVadugapatti Kattakulam Villaku and dead bodies of two childrenin the stagnant water under the over bridge on Madurai-Dindigulfour lane highway near Viralipatti junction in Vadipatti PSlimits and dispersed.(iv) After disposing of the bodies, the accused Hasarathand Sahul Hameed boarded the bus for Chennai at Mattuthavani busstand Madurai and on 12.11.2010 the accused Sahul Hameed,Mohemad Hasarath and Manivannan flew to Malaysia. On 13.11.2010Ramjan Beevi the mother of Sahul Hameed also went to Malaysia.The section of law of the cases was altered to 147, 120(b), 115,201, 364, 366(A) & 302 IPC r/w 34 IPC. On 15.11.2010 at 15.00hrs at Ramanathapuram the accused Jeyakumar was arrested and inpursuance of his confession the Scorpio car TN 65K 2223 wasseized and remanded to judicial custody. On 19.11.2010 at 07.30hrs at Ramanathapuram the accused Tahmmemul Ansari was arrestedand in pursuance of his confession the 7 sovereign goldornaments stolen from the dead body of the deceased Adila Banuwas recovered from the receiver. On 30.11.2010 at 14.00 hrs atSattankulam the accused/petitioner Pakkirammal was arrested andsent for remand. The accused Sahul Hameed, Mohamed Hasarath,Mannivannan and Ramjan Beevi escaped to Malaysia. The accusedJailani and Yasin are still absconding. 5.The learned counsel for the petitioner would state that thepetitioner has nothing to do with the alleged offence and she has beenshown as an accused merely because she is the maternal grand-mother ofthe first accused and mother of an other accused and because the accusedhad initially chosen to bury the body of the deceased in a coconut thopebelonging to her. He would further submit that the petitioner is agedabout 79 years and she has been in judicial custody from 01.12.2010.6. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) would rely on the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ counter filed by the State and inform that this petitioner was a party tothe conspiracy to do away with the deceased. He would submit that thefirst accused in the case is absconding. He would also submit that therewas likelihood of the petitioner absconding and as a wealthy lady couldadversely affect the investigation.7. The learned counsel for the intervenor would object the grant ofbail to the petitioner and inform that though investigation in the casestands transferred, the petitioner had chosen to inform the earlierinvestigating agency viz., CBCID Madurai Unit as respondent. He wouldfurther submit that pursuant to the order of this court in W.P.(MD).No.245 of 2011, dated 06.01.2011, this petitioner was examined by theDistrict Medical Officer, Trichy and such officer has found that theclaim of the petitioner having suffered a paralytic attack was false andthat she had been sent back to the Central prison for women at Trichy. Hewould also submit that the petitioner's contention was that her age is 79years, but in W.P.(MD).No.245 of 2011, her age had been informed as 68years. 8. This Court was informed that the statement of the watchmen of thethope would inform the complicity of this petitioner, this Court hadadjourned the matter yesterday towards production of a clean type copythereof. On the face of it the same does not indicate any prior knowledgeof the murders or complicity in the commission thereof. Considering theage of the petitioner who is admittedly not below 68 years, that she hasbeen in judicial custody from 01.12.2010; that the respondent policecannot now seek her custodial interrogation, this Court is inclined togrant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered tobe released on bail and on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to thesatisfaction of the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate,Vadipatti and on further condition that the petitioner shall stay atCoimbatore and report before the Gandhipuram Police Station, daily at12.00 a.m. for a period of one month and thereafter as and when required. sd/- 19/01/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.)TO1. THE DISTRICT MUNSIF-CUM-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, VADIPATTI.2 . -DO- THRO THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,MADURAI.3. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE CB CID., MADURAI UNIT, MADURAI.4. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, L & O VADIPATTI POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT.5. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSEUCTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.6. THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON FOR WOMEN, TRICHY.7. THE OFFICER INCHARGE, GANDHIPURAM POLICE STATION, COIMBATORE.+1. CC to M/S. A.SHIV KUMAR Advocate SR.No.1826+1cc to Mr.VEERAKATHIRAVAN, Advocate SR.No.1997SR : 21.01.2011 : 4p/10c ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.362 of 2011 Date :19/01/2011