RAMALINGAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this petition for his release on bail.

(2.) THE deceased and the first accused were brothers and they had property dispute, which resulted in a civil suit. On 18.9.1998, civil suit was posted for judgment, that the first accused entered into a criminal conspiracy alongwith other accused and as a result of the said conspiracy on 18.9.98 when the deceased and another person (also deceased) were coming in a two wheeler, a four wheeler driven by one of the accused persons with the intention to commit the murder of those two persons dashed against them, and as a result both of them died. THE respondent/police registered a case and investigated into the matter, ultimately filed a charge sheet against the present petitioner and others for offences under Secs.120-B and 302, I.P.C. THE petitioner turned approver and confession was recorded under Sec.164(1), Crl.P.C. THE petitioner was examined and cross-examined in the committal court and the case is pending trial before the Court of Sessions in S.C. No. 85 of 1999.

(3.) IN Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar, 1995 S.C.C. (Crl.) 60 at 83 their Lordships of the Supreme Court held: ?The dominant object of requiring an approver to be detained in custody until the termination of the trial is not intended to punish the approver for having come forward to give evidence in support of the prosecution, but to protect him from the possible indignation, rage and resentment of his associates in a crime who he has chosen to expose as well as with a view to prevent him from the temptation of saving his one time friends and companions after he is granted pardon and released from custody. It is for these reasons that clause (b) of Sec.306(4) casts a duty on the court to keep the approver under detention till the termination of the trial and thus the provisions are based on statutory principles of public policy and public interest, violation of which could not be tolerated.? IN the same decision, the lines following the above quoted passage would go to show that the High Court can release the approver on bail. However, we have already seen the grounds in the earlier two decisions, relied on by the petitioner, on which the approver can be released on bail. As held by this Court in Karuppaservai v. Kundaru alias Muniandi Thevan, A.I.R. 1952 Mad. 833, that stage has not come for his release on bail as he has not been examined in the Sessions Court. The period of his custody is also not a prolonged one so as to consider his release on bail under Sec.482, Crl.P.C.