S. MURUGAN MURUGA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed under Sections 437 and 439 of Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') seeking regular bail to the petitioner/A-6 in connection with Crime No.130 of 2015 of I Town Police Station, Chittoor District, for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302, 307, 326, 120-B, 109 r/w 149 and 212, 216 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 S.25(1A), 25(1AAA), 25(1B)(a), 25(1B)(c), 27(3) and 30 of the Arms Act.

(2.) The case of prosecution is that, a report was lodged by one V.Satish Kumar Naidu on 17.11.2015 against the accused Nos.1 to 4 wherein it was stated that on 17.11.2015 the said V.Satish Kumar Naidu went to Municipal Corporation Office, Chittoor to meet Katari Mohan, who is the husband of Chittoor Mayor to discuss about his father's transfer. When he is in the chambers of the Mayor, at about 11.45 a.m., accused Nos.1 to 4 alleged to have entered into the chambers of the Mayor and out of them two persons are in Burkhas and that the accused No.1 removed his Burkha and shot the Mayor on her head with a revolver and accused No.3 hacked Katari Mohan with a knife on his neck. When the de facto complainant tried to stop the accused No.4, he hacked him on his back. It is further alleged that when Katari Mohan ran away into the conference Hall which is attached to the Mayor's chamber, all the accused chased him and hacked him with knives. Thereafter, the persons who were there viz., Murali, Chinna, Kishore, Vijay Kumar and others shifted 2 the Mayor Anuradha, Katari Mohan and the de facto complainant to hospital, where the doctors declared that the Mayor was brought dead. Thereafter, the said Katari Mohan, who received serious injuries and the de facto complainant were shifted to CMC Hospital for better treatment and that when the de facto complainant was in hospital, his statement was recorded by the police, and basing on the same, registered a case and took up investigation. After completion of investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the petitioner herein and 22 others and so far as the petitioner/A.6 is concerned, it is alleged in the charge sheet that A.1 conspired with the other accused including the petitioner herein in order to kill the deceased. It is further stated that the petitioner's wife was diagnosed with malignant (tumor) in her brain and it was operated by the doctors at CMC Medical College, Nellore, and after performance of the surgery to her brain, she was completely bed ridden and she was not even in a position to attend her day-to-day activities without the assistance of other persons. Since the date of operation i.e., in the year 2014, her condition deteriorated and time and again she was taken to hospital for different procedures and, in fact, in connection with the same, even this Court as well as the trial Court, granted interim bail 6 times as of now ranging from 3 days to 1 month. Whenever the petitioner released on interim bail either with escort or without escort, he promptly surrendered before the jail authorities as indicated in the bail orders. It is further stated that recently when the petitioner is in jail, his health condition also deteriorated and he is facing numerous health issues such as chronic hyper tension and 3 transient ischemic attack, cervical spondylosis for which he was even taken to government hospitals as well as the other specialty hospitals like SVIMS hospital, Tirupati. Therefore, at present, the petitioner wants to arrange good treatment to his wife and further he also needs to take treatment from super specialty hospital for his ailments. It is further stated that unless this Court release the petitioner on bail for a period of 3 months enabling him to arrange proper treatment to his wife as well as taking treatment for himself, he will be put to great hardship and irreparable loss. It is further stated that the petitioner was arrayed as accused in the case basing on the confessions and that except the alleged confessions of the other accused in the crime there is no other material to prove the said allegation. It is further stated that when the petitioner is in jail as under-trial prisoner, his family was put to great hardship in view of the severe financial crisis and also due to the ill health of the petitioner's wife. Hence, the case of the petitioner may be considered for grant of bail.

(3.) Heard Sri D.Purnachandra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.