TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (11) TMI 1016
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d into Sections 143, 436, 302, 307, 149 and 120B IPC in Crime No.153 of 2019, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that, while the defacto complainant's wife was returning after inspecting her paper manufacturing unit which was yet to be commissioned, a Lorry bearing Registration No.TN-30-AL-6946 dashed against the Car in which the defacto complainant's wife travelled and driver of the Car died on the spot. Wife of the defacto complainant sustained severe burn injuries and was admitted in St. John's Hospital, Bangalore, for further treatment. A case has been registered originally for the offences under Sections 279, 338 and 304(A) IPC and subsequently altered into Sections 143, 436, 302, 307, 149 and 120B I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd 12 months have passed from the date of occurrence. The petitioner is aged 69 years and is suffering from various ailments. The petitioner is innocent, he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. The petitioner is willing to co-operate with the investigation and will abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court and prayed for granting anticipatory bail. 4.The Deputy Superintendent of Police has filed a status report. The learned State Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent Police submitted that the petitioner is the first accused and at his instigation only, A.2 to A.14 committed murder. The petitioner is absconding for more than one year. The petitioner is running paper manufacturing unit and the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and custodial interrogation is necessary to obtain the real facts of the case and prayed for a direction to the petitioner to surrender before the respondent Police. In support of his contention, the learned Public Prosecutor relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2005 (2) SCC 42 (SC) [Kalyan Chandra Sarkar and Ors. v. Rajesh Ranjan and ors.] and prayed for dismissal of the anticipatory bail petition. 5.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the intervenor submitted that the petitioner is the prime accused and he executed a well planned murder. Initially it was thought that incident was an accident but the preliminary investigation revealed that it was a murder. Unless the petitioner is taken into custody fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....perintendent of Police, it is stated that the alleged occurrence witness was examined on 14.12.2019, after one month of the date of occurrence, i.e. 11.11.2019 and his statement was recorded. Even according to the prosecution, almost investigation is over and charge sheet is ready. There is no necessity for keeping the investigation pending just for the purpose of arresting the petitioner. In support of his contention, the learned Senior Counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2005 (2) SCC 13 [Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal v. State of Tamil Nadu]. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner reiterated that the petitioner is arrayed as first accused only based on confession statements of other accused and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....utor as well as the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the intervenor is that unless the petitioner is taken into custody and interrogated, he will tamper the evidence and influence the witnesses. It is seen that the petitioner is not apprehended for one year from date of occurrence and all other accused were released on bail. Considering the contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned State Public Prosecutor and the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the intervenor, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions, as the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary for the following reasons: (i) The date of occurrence is 11.11.2019 (ii) O....