ELAVARASAN @ PANDIAN @ VALLAVAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Miscellaneous Petition has been filed by the Life Convict seeking to suspend the sentence and grant Interim Bail for one month to the Petitioner/Appellant for the conviction and sentence imposed in S.C. No.12 of 2001 on the file of the Sessions Court for Exclusive Trial of Bomb Blast Cases, Chennai at Poonamallee, pending disposal of the above said Criminal Appeal.

(2.) THOUGH the Appellant raised various grounds to set aside the Order of conviction and sentence imposed on him, he seeks Interim Bail for one month on the ground that his father Balasundaram is not well. According to the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, Petitioner 's father is 90 years old and is ailing; on and off he is admitted in the Hospital for treatment due to old age ailment and hence, he prays for granting one month interim bail to be granted to him to enable him to be with his father during his last days.

(3.) HOWEVER , Mr. Shunmugavelayutham, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, while filing the Written Objections, would seriously oppose the prayer sought for by the Petitioner. In the Written Objections, the prosecution has detailed the number of cases in which this Petitioner is named as an Accused. It shows that there are about 19 cases filed against the Petitioner during the time when he was absconding. On instructions, the learned Public Prosecutor submits that initially this Petitioner was arrested on 8.3.1992 and was released on bail on 20.8.1992; thereafter, he was absconding and hence, absconding NSW was issued 20.7.1995 and again he was arrested on 6.8.1997 and granted bail on 4.11.1999. There again, since he was absconding, absconding NBW came to be issued on 12.7.2002 and he was arrested by Special Task Force (STF) on 4.6.2004. It is the further case of the Public Prosecutor that this Petitioner was involved in 17 cases including 20 cases registered against him and he is also the Founder of ''Thamizhar Viduthalai Padai '' which is a Naxalite organisatin and a banned organization too. Therefore, he submits that granting leave to the Petitioner for a month, as prayed for, would definitely not be in the interest of the Petitioner himself as well as the State.