High Court · 2025

CRL OP(MD). No.699 of 2025BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction )Date : 14/02/2025PRESENTTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHICRL OP(MD). No.699 of 2025Muthu Esaki @ Vaganam,S/o.Ulaganathan,No.4/21, Muppidathi Amman Kovil Street,Timmarajapuram, Palayamkottai,Tirunelveli District- 627353. ... Petitioner/AccusedVs1.The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Sivagiri Police Station, Tirunelveli District. (Crime No. 173 of 2016).2.The Superintendent of Police, O/o. the Superintendent of Police, Tenkasi, Tenkasi District. ... Respondents/Complainants1/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.699 of 2025 For Petitioner :Mr. K.Sankar, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr.P.Kottaichamy, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSSPRAYER :-To release the petitioner on bail in P.R.C.No. 31/2018 on the file ofthe Learned Judicial Magistrate, Sivagiri in connection with Crime No. 173 of 2016pending on the file of the respondent police.O R D E R The petitioner/A8 in Crime No.173 of 2016, who was arrested andremanded to judicial custody on 31.01.2024, for the offence under Section 397 IPCseeks bail.2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this is thesixth application filed by this petitioner, seeking bail. The petitioner is languishing injail for the past one year. The case is in the PRC stage, without committing to the trialCourt. The warrant issued as against the other accused has not been executed by therespondent police and therefore, the petitioner is unnecessarily confined in prison forthe past one year. Now, the learned counsel has come forward with an affidavit ofone Kumar, the Village Head of Melappattam Village, Tirunelveli with an assurancethat the petitioner will not indulge in any offence in future. 3.The learned Government Advocate(Crl.side) appearing for the2/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.699 of 2025respondent submits that there are totally nine accused in this case. The case could notbe progressed for want of of accused 1,4,5,6,7 and 9. In case, if the petitioner isreleased on bail, there will be chances of tampering the evidence by him.4.This Court considered the rival submissions made and also perused thematerials placed on record.5. A case in Crime No. 173 of 2016 was initially registered for the offenceunder Section 379 IPC and thereafter, it was altered into 397 IPC. The petitioner, whois arrayed as A8 in the above case was arrested in the year 2016 and was also releasedon bail. The respondent police has filed a final report before the learned JudicialMagistrate, Sivagiri, in the year 2018 and the same is pending in PRC No.31 of 2018.The petitioner is said to have appeared upto 2020 in the PRC proceedings. However,the case was not committed for want of accused 1, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9. The petitioner hasfailed to appear before the trial Court on 09.02.2021 and therefore, a non bailablewarrant of arrest was issued as against this petitioner. After three years, the petitionerwas secured on 31.01.2024. The petitioner has moved the earlier application beforethis Court seeking bail in Crl.OP(MD) No. 4389 of 2024 and the same was dismissedon 05.04.2024, considering the nature of offence, his involvement in another crimeand also considering that he has absconded for more than three years. In the secondapplication filed by this petitioner, this Court has also called for a report from the3/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.699 of 2025concerned Judicial Magistrate for the reasons for not committing the proceedings,which is pending from the year 2018. A report, dated 12.09.2024 has also beensubmitted by the Judicial Magistrate, Sivagiri, wherein, she has stated that thewarrant issued as against the other accused have not been executed by the police andtherefore the committal proceedings is pending. Subsequent applications filed by thepetitioner were dismissed by this Court considering the antecedent of this petitioner.This Court, in the earlier application filed by this petitioner in Crl.OP(MD) No.14672of 2024 has passed the following order. “7.The fact remains that for the incident, which is said to have taken placein the year 2016, final report was filed in the year 2018, taken on file on18.05.2018 and the same is kept pending without any progress for the pastsix years. Even according to the learned Judicial Magistrate, most of theaccused are still absconding and NBWs are pending as against them. It isnot known when this case would be committed to the Court of Sessionsand when the case would be listed for the trail. While listing for the trial, itis not known whether the witnesses would be alive and available forevidence. This is how most of the cases are defeated by the police and thejudiciary. Ultimately the poor victims are not getting remedy in thepresent criminal justice system. At the stage of committal, the Judicial4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.699 of 2025Magistrates are not expected to be liberal in entertaining the petitions tocondone the absence of the accused and also by recalling the non-bailablewarrant of arrest of co-accused. This liberal attitude of some of the JudicialMagistrates are taken advantage of by accused in evading the trail. Thepurpose of evading the trail is to defeat the prosecution case and tamperwith the witnesses. Entertaining the application under Sections 317 CrPCand under Sections 70(2)CrPC is also encouraging the attitude of theaccused. If the case is pending for the appearance of the accused, theconcerned Magistrate ought to have taken this issue to the Superintendentof Police or at least to the Deputy Superintendent of Police concerned andought to have taken steps to execute the NBW. The police officers are alsounder the impression that their duty is over by filing the final report. TheSuperintendent of Police are also expected to monitor the pendency of thecommittal proceedings and the trial in Sessions cases for want ofappearance of the accused. They ought to have taken some initiatives toarrest the accused and ensure that the trial is conducted within areasonable time. By this time the witnesses would have been demoralisedand they may not be interested in letting in evidence. The respondentpolice and the Courts are having certain responsibilities to the victims,5/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.699 of 2025who are affected in the crime No.173 of 2016. Therefore, this Court is notinclined to entertain this application and accordingly, this criminaloriginal petition is dismissed with the following directions:i.The Superintendent of Police, Tenkasi is suo motu impleaded as arespondent to this petition and this Court directs the Superintendent ofPolice to form a special team and to ensure the non-bailable warrant asagainst the accused in Crime No.173 of 2016 (PRC No.31 of 2018) areexecuted within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copyof this order.ii. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tenkasi shall monitor thecase, also follow it up with the Superintendent of Police and shall ensurethat the case is committed within a period of six weeks from the date ofreceipt of a copy of this order.iii.The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate is expected to ascertain theperformance of the present learned Judicial Magistrate, Sivagiri and if theChief Judicial Magistrate feels that the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sivagiriis not capable of handling this case, shall transfer the case to some othercourt and shall ensure that the case is committed as directed by this Courtabove.6/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.699 of 2025iv.The Superintendent of Police is expected to take appropriateaction as against the officers concerned, who have failed to execute thenon bailable warrant as against the accused for the past several years.”6.Even after the above order of this Court dated 24.09.2024, therespondent police have not taken any steps to secure the remaining accused. This isthe sixth application filed by the petitioner, seeking bail. The petitioner is languishingin jail for the past one year. The Court has not taken any steps to commit theproceedings, by splitting up the case as against the available accused, who are in jail.For the sake of other accused and without any progress in the case, this petitioner isconfined in jail for the past one year. In the aforesaid order, this Court has expectedsome response from the Superintendent of Police with regard to the non-execution ofwarrant issued as against the remaining accused. Even after the reminder, dated24.09.2024, the respondent police have not taken any initiative to secure theremaining accused. It appears that the Superintendent of Police has not botheredabout the pendency of this case from the year 2018, without committtal on the groundof non-execution of warrant. It exposes the capacity of the Tenkasi police in securingthe remaining accused in this case. The Court is also not proceeding with the casefurther, by committing the proceedings with the available accused. 7. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.699 of 2025would be served, if the petitioner is allowed to confine in prison, when the case ispending at PRC stage. The Village Head of Melappattam Village, Tirunelveli has filedan affidavit with an assurance that the petitioner will not indulge in any offence infuture. Therefore, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with someconditions. 8.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is ordered and thepetitioner is ordered to be released on bail on the following conditions:-i) The petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh) with two sureties each for a like sum to thesatisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sivagiri, Tirunelveli. Onesurety shall be the Village Head of Melappattam Village, Tirunelveli.ii) The petitioner and the sureties shall submit a copy of theirAadhaar Card or any other identity card issued by the Government inproof of their residence address;iii) The petitioner shall report before the respondent police dailyat 10.30 a.m, until further orders.iv) The petitioner shall not misuse the liberty granted to him byindulging in any further offence and shall not tamper with theprosecution witnesses. He shall be available for the trial as well.8/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.699 of 2025v) On violation of any of the above conditions by the petitioner,the respondent police shall move an application for cancellation of thebail. sd/- 14/02/2025 / TRUE COPY / 14/02/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. VRNTO1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,SIVAGIRI, TIRUNELVELI.2 DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIALMAGISTRATE, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT.3 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,O/O. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,TENKASI,TENKASI DISTRICT.4 THE SUPERINTENDENT,CENTRAL PRISON, TIRUNELVELI.5 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,SIVAGIRI POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT.6 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. 9/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.699 of 2025+1 CC to M/s.K.SANKAR, Advocate ( SR-1652[I] dated 14/02/2025 ) ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.699 of 2025 Date :14/02/2025SA/SAR. /14.02.2025/10P/8CMadurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023. 10/10