D. VINOTH KUMAR Vs. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants, 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 appellants herein filed bail application, which, after hearing was dismissed by the trial court against which the present miscellaneous petition is filed.

(2.) Vide order dated 25.10.2019, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that he is giving up the plea for bail insofar as the 4th appellant is concerned and the same was recorded by this Court. Therefore, the appeal insofar as the 4th appellant stands dismissed.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the appellants 1 to 3 submit 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 appellants on the ground that there is a possibility of them tampering with the evidence. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that even according to the prosecution case, the appellants were allegedly guarding the house when the crime was perpetrated and the appellants not being attributed with any overt acts, they could be granted the benefit of suspension. It is further submitted that some of the accused have been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 23.10.2019 in Crl. A. (MD) No.463/2019 and, therefore, these appellants, who are similarly placed may also be granted the similar benefit. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants will not indulge in any act that would impede with the conduct of the trial and, hence, prays for enlarging the appellants on bail.