GANESAN Vs. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
LAWS(MAD)-2019-11-28
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Decided on November 06,2019

GANESAN Appellant
VERSUS
DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

V. Parthiban, J. - (1.) The appellant, along with other accused, were charged for the offences u/s 147, 148, 452, 294 (b), 342, 506 (ii) and 302 IPC and Section 4 of the Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act and Section 3 (2) (V) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act. Pending trial, the petitioner herein filed bail application, which, after hearing was dismissed by the trial court against which the present miscellaneous petition is filed.
(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that though the prosecution has completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet, which fact has been recorded by the learned trial Judge, yet, bail has not been granted to the appellant on the ground that there is a possibility of him tampering with the evidence. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, the name of the appellant does not even find a place in the FIR, but his name has been added only on the alleged confession said to have been given by a co-accused. It is further submitted that some of the accused, whose names were found mentioned in the FIR, have been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 23.10.2019 in Crl. A. (MD) No.463/2019 and, therefore, this appellant, whose name does not find a place in the FIR, may also be granted the similar benefit. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the defacto complainant has not spoken about the presence of the appellant at the scene of occurrence. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant will not indulge in any act that would impede with the conduct of the trial and, hence, prays for enlarging the appellant on bail.
(3.) Per contra, Mr. V.Neelakandan, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondents 1 & 2 submitted that the trial court, after detailed arguments by both sides, by a reasoned order, has rejected the application for bail and, therefore, no interference is called for with the said order and this petition is liable to be dismissed.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.