Chittoor Mayor Murder Case| Supreme Court Grants Bail To One Accused

Noting that the time lag between the incident and the examination of witnesses and the trial creates its own problems in the testimony of the witnesses, more so, the eye witnesses, the Supreme Court has repeated that "it is the duty of the prosecution to ensure that the prosecution witnesses are available and it is the duty of the trial Court to ensure that none of the parties is permitted to protract the trial".The bench of Justices S. K. Kaul and M. M. Sundresh was hearing the bail plea of one of the accused in connection with an incident of 17.11.2015, almost seven years back, where the assailants entered the office of the Mayor in Chittoor District in Andhra Pradesh along with a pistol by wearing mask and trespassed into the Chambers of the Mayor during day time and committed the murder of the Mayor and shot her dead with a point blank range with a pistol. After threatening officials, the assailants escaped from the scene. Charge sheet has already been filed and the trial is going on."We may note that the role assigned to the appellant before us is that he was sitting besides the driver in the vehicle where the assailants escaped", recorded the bench. Considering the role of the appellant-accused, the bench said that he has been roped in along with other accused on account of conspiracy and the fact that he was sitting in the vehicle in which the assailants escaped. "Now, the most material aspect is that the appellant before us has been in custody for almost 7 years, the trial has not proceeded albeit on report of the trial Court more specifically directed qua the manner in which A-1 is not letting the trial proceed. The High Court has directed the trial to proceed expeditiously", noted the bench.The bench proceeded to remark, "We are troubled by the fact that seven years after the incident the prosecution witnesses have not been examined and the trial is yet to commence. This is completely unacceptable. Time lag creates its own problems in the testimony of the witnesses more so the eye witnesses"."It is the duty of the prosecution to ensure that the prosecution witnesses are available and it is the duty of the trial Court to ensure that none of the parties is permitted to protract the trial. We are thus, of the view that the trial Court must control the dilatory tactics of any of the parties and all steps must be taken to ensure that post trial, the judgment of the trial Court is available within a period of one year from the date of the communication of this order", observed the bench.The bench recorded that on 19.07.2022, A-2, undisputedly the principal accused, was granted bail by the High Court; that on 01.08.2022, the top court had issued notice to the state to obtain instructions about the same more so, in view of the role assigned to the appellant in facilitating the escape of the persons who assaulted the deceased, and that the aforesaid fact is accepted. "The counsel for the complainant/injured witness strongly opposes the grant of bail. It is his submission that though A-2 may have been granted bail, the complainant/injured witness has filed an application seeking cancellation of the bail on account of threat to the witnesses, protraction of the trial by the accused and it is his say that the entire gamut of the facts were not before the Court when A-2 was granted bail. That the appellant should not be granted bail merely on account of parity with A-2 more so, when the the application for cancellation of bail is pending consideration. On hearing learned counsel for the parties, we may notice that there is something in what the learned counsel for the complainant/injured witness says, i.e. the appellant should not be enlarged on bail merely on account of parity with A-2. We have thus considered the role of the appellant", said the bench.Considering the role ascribed to the appellant in the charge sheet and the total period spent in custody, the bench was inclined to grant bail to the appellant, adding that the appellant would be required to be present personally before the trial Court on all dates and would facilitate in the trial and that if the trial Court finds that the appellant is endeavouring to delay the trial, or thereafter temper with the evidence, the trial Court may cancel the bail and put the appellant in custody.CASE TITLE: S. MURUGAN @ MURUGA v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR.Click Here To Read/Download Order

Chittoor Mayor Murder Case| Supreme Court Grants Bail To One Accused

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags