STATE Vs. RADHAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for cancellation of the bail granted in Crl.M.P.No.8279 of 1988 in C.A.No.774 of 1986 by order dated 28.10.1988. A Division Bench of this Court passed an order on 28.10.1988 directing release of the petitioners therein including the respondent herein on bail on each of the petitioners executing a bond for a sum of Rs.5,000 with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Cuddalore.

(2.) IT is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition that the respondent while on bail has committed another murder of one Subramanyam, son of Manikasammutiar of Sammutikuppan on 22.1993 and a case has been registered in Crl.No.32 of 1993 for offences under Secs.147,148,341,324 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code on the file of the Inspector of Police, Kullanchavadi Police Station. IT is alleged that both the murders took place within the same police jurisdiction, and the accused had surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate, Portnovo on 5.3.1993 when he was remanded to judicial custody in Crl.No.32 of 1993. IT is stated that he is at present detained in Central Jail, Cuddalore. IT is further alleged that the said Manickam, father of the deceased figures as an eye-witness in both the murder cases and Mari-muthu, wife of the deceased is cited as witness in the subsequent murder case and if the accused is allowed to be at large, it would be a danger for the lives of the above referred two witnesses. IT is also stated in another paragraph that the respondent is a record sheeted rowdy in the area, there are number of enemies who are aiming at his life and his stay at large would cost his life. On the above allegations, the prayer is made by the prosecution.

(3.) IN the circumstances, the best course is to oppose the bail application moved by the accused in the second case. It is for the concerned court to decide whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the accused should be let on bail or not. IN the circumstances, the fact that the accused is involved now in another case cannot be taken into account for the purpose of cancellation of bail granted to him.