Poomalai v. State Rep. by

ORDER This Criminal Original Petition is filed for enlarging the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest by the respondent police concerned in Crime No.24 of 2022.

¶2It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is implicated as third accused in this case. He has no role, whatsoever in the death of three victims, who died of food poisoning. Merely because the petitioner is the father of first accused, he is falsely implicated in this case. He was a former Sub-Inspector of Police and law abiding citizen. He is prepared to cooperate with the investigation and thus, he seeks anticipatory bail.

¶3In response, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted that first accused is the wife of defacto complainant S.Velmurugan. Defacto complainant and first accused have two children. First accused developed illicit intimacy with second accused. With a view to kill the defacto complainant, she mixed poison in the Sambar prepared by the defacto complainant's mother. Fortunately, defacto complainant did not eat the rice mixed with poisoned Sambar for the reason that it tasted bitter. Unfortunately, his parents, who consumed the poisoned Sambar and a child of neighbour, who had also consumed poisoned Sambar, died of poison. Petitioner, who is the father of first accused, in order to save her from the murder case, subverted the process of investigation by inducing the defacto complainant to give a complaint as if he had no suspicion in the death of his parents, and thus diverted the course of investigation. In the said process, fourth accused also helped the petitioner/third accused. Therefore, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) strongly opposed this petition.

¶4Considered the rival submissions and perused the records.

¶5First Information Report in this case was originally registered under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. It is alleged in the First Information Report that on 29.12.2021, defacto complainant along with first accused and his children visited their parents at Elangiyanur village. His mother prepared Mullangi Sambar (Raddish Sambar) and Rasam. He did not like Mullangi Sambar (Raddish Sambar), and the Mullangi Sambar (Raddish Sambar) prepared on that day tasted bitter and therefore, he avoided taking the rice with Mullangi Sambar (Raddish Sambar) and took Rasam rice. Neighbour Chitra requested some Sambar and therefore, defacto complainant's mother gave her Sambar. Chitra's children Nitheeswaran and Priyadarshini had also consumed the food with poisoned Sambar. On the same night, defacto complainant's mother fell ill. Despite treatment, she died on 04.01.2022. His father also fell ill on 01.01.2022 and he died on 05.01.2022. The neighbour's child Nitheeswaran was also admitted in the hospital and subsequently, died.

¶6After investigation, final report was filed. The case of the prosecution is that defacto complainant was working in Behrain. First accused along with her children were living in Ramachandran Pettai, Vridhachalam. Defacto complainant's mother was working as helper under the contractor, who was constructing defacto complainant's house. She found that accused A1 and A2 had illicit relationship and brought it to the notice of the defacto complainant. Thereafter, defacto complainant stopped talking with his wife-first accused. The relationship between defacto complainant and first accused was not that good. Accused A1 and A2 devised a plan to eliminate defacto complainant, to continue their illicit relationship. In pursuance of their plan, second accused bought 100 ml of Monocrotophos poison and gave it to first accused. On 29.12.2021 when defacto complainant, first accused and their children visited the house of defacto complainant's parents, first accused mixed the poison in the Sambar prepared by defacto complainant's mother, as stated above, resulting in the death of defacto complainant's parents and neighbour's child Nitheeswaran.

¶7The specific charge against this petitioner and his son/A4 is that when this petitioner told the first accused on 02.01.2022 that "she had alone done something and asked her to reveal as to what did she do, only then they would save her, she answered that she mixed Monocrotophos pesticide in Sambar." Thereafter, this petitioner/A3 and his son/A4 had prepared a complaint, contrary to the truth, stating that defacto complainant had no suspicion over the death of his parents and gave the complaint to the police. Complaint was written by A4. It is pertinent to refer the relevant portion of the statement of defacto complainant to understand the role of the petitioner/A3 and his son/A4 in this case, which is as follows:- Crl.O.P.No.14776oofoo2023 "////////////// mjdhy; ehDk; vdJ mff; ht[k.; mtuJ kfd; Mde;Jk; kWehs; 06/01/2022?e; njjp fhiyapy; m';fpUe;J gw[ g;glL; fzl; g;gd;Fwpr;rpf;F te;jnghJ vd; khkdhUk;. mtuJ kfd; tpndhj;Jk; m'n; f te;J vdi; d klL; k; k';fyk;ngli; l fhty; epiyak; miHj;J brdW; vd; mgg; h ,we;jJ gw;wp klL; k; g[fhh; vGjp bfhLj;jhh;/ mij ehd; goj;J ghh;j;JtplL; nfll; nghJ c';fs; mg;ghtpd; gpnujk; ghz;or;nrhp $pgk; h; kUj;Jtkidapy; cs;sJ/ mjdhy;jhd; mg;go vGjpndd/; c';fs; mk;khtpd; gpnujk; jhd; tPlo; y; cs;snj vdw; hh;/ ehd; ,uzL; ngh; ,we;jJ gww; p Kgr vGj brhd;ndd/; mjd;gpwF tpndhj; vGjp bfhLj;j g[fhiu goj;J ghh;jJ. 29/12/2021 e; njjp mth;fs; rhg;gpll; Ks;s';fp rhkg; hhpy; Vnjh fye;Jtpll; jhy; jhd; mth;fs; ,we;Jtpll; hh;fs; vdW; vGjtpyi; yna vdW; nfln; ld/; mjw;F tpndhj; mbjy;yhk; vGjpdhy; nghyP!; tprhuiz vdw; bgahpy; ehs; flj;Jthh;fs;/ Vw;fdnt c';fs; mkk; h ,we;J ,uz;L ehs; MfpwJ/ ehd; vGjpajpy; eP ifbaGj;J nghl Crl.O.P.No.14776oofoo2023 tpUg;gkpyi; y vdw; hy; eh';fs; nghfpnwhk;/ ePna ,Ue;J ghh;j;Jf;bfhs;/ vjw;Fk; v';fis ,dpnky; Tg;gplhnj vdW; brhy;yp mtuJ mg;ghit miHj;jhh;/ vdf;F cjtpf;F m';nf ahUkpyi; y vdg; jhy; mg;nghJ mth; brhdd; ij bra;njd;/ 06/01/2022?e; njjp vd; mk;khtpd; gpnujj;ij ,s';fpaDhhpy; ,Ue;J nghyP!hh; tpGg;g[uk; bfhz;LbrdW; ngh!l; ; k; hh;ll; k; Koj;J md;nw xg;gilj;jhh;fs;/ kWehs; 07/01/2022e; njjp $pgk; h; kUj;Jtkidapy; ,Ue;j vd; mg;ghtpd; gpnujj;ij ngh!l; ; khh;ll; k; bra;J v';fsplk; xgg; ilj;jhh;fs;/ mth;fspd; gpnujj;ij xg;gilj;j ehspy; vhpj;Jtpl;nlhk/; ////////////////////////////////////// vd; kidtpapd; eltofi; ffis mt;tg;nghJ bjhpe;J mij mtuJ bgwn; whh;fsplKk;. vdd; plKk; brhdd; jhYk.; ,dpnky; ehd; ,Uf;Fk; ,lj;jpy; vd;Dld;jhd; ,Uf;fntz;Lk; vdW; k; vd; mk;kh brhdd; jhy; mtiua[k;. mnj nghy; cd; bghzl; hlo; cd;Dld; thH tuiyd;dh tPlo; ypUe;J mtis btspna js;sp fjit g{lL; lh vdW; brhdd; jhy; vd; mgg; hita[k;. Crl.O.P.No.14776oofoo2023 vdd; plk; ve;jtpjkhd cwtk[ ; itj;Jf;bfhs;shky; v';fsplk; brhy;ypf; bfhs;shky; vd; g[jpa tPlo; y; Fog[Fe;J mij ifg;gww; pf; bfhz;lnjhL. vd;Dila brhj;Jf;fis mgfhpf;ftk[ ; Kot[ bra;Jk; ,dpnky; ehd; capUld; ,Ue;jhy; fPjhtpd; fs;sf;fhjYf;F ehd; bjhe;juthf ,Ugn; gd; vd;gjhYk; v';fs; K:dW; ngiua[k; bfhiy bra;Jtpll; hy; mtnuhl fs;sf;fhjyndhL re;njhcokhf ,Uf;fyhk; vdg; jw;fhf vd; mkk; h brhdd; go vd;Dld; nrhe; ;JthH tUtijg;nghy gpsi; sfis miHj;Jf;bfhz;L teJ; ,s';fpaDhhpy; cs;s v';fs; tPlo; y; j';fp vd; mkk; h bra;j Ks;s';fp rhk;ghhpy; g{rr; pf;bfhy;yp kUei; j fye;J v';fs; Kt: iua[k; bfhiy bra;a Kot[ bra;Js;shh;/ mjph;co; ltrkhf ehd; jg;gpj;Jtpll; nld;/ ghtk; gf;fj;JtPlL; rpWtd; epj;jP!;tuDk; vd; mkk; h. mg;ght[k; me;j Ks;s';fp rhk;ghh; rhjj;ij rhg;gplL; ,we;Jtpll; hh;fs;/ fPjhjhd; Ks;s';fp rhk;ghhpy; tpcok; fye;jhh; vd;gij kiwg;gjw;fhf Ks;s';fp rhk;ghnu rhg;gplhj vd; kfid kUj;Jtkidapy; nrh;j;J ehlfkhodhh;/ vdf;F ahUk; Jizf;F ,y;yhjjhy; mtuJ mg;ght[k; mz;zQqk; brhd;dijbay;yhk; vd; mk;kht[k; mg;ght[k; ,we;jgpwFk; ehd; bra;antz;oajhapw;W/ ,d;W k';fyk;ngl;il fhty; Ma;thsuhfpa jh';fs; vd;id tprhuiz bra;J vd; thf;FK:yj;ij jh';fs; itj;jpUe;j kof;fzpdpapy; jl;lr;R bra;J gjpt[ bra;jPh;fs;/"

¶8It is also seen from the statement of one Chellamuthu, grandfather of deceased Nitheeswaran, that one Senthilkumar approached him with an offer of payment of Rs.15,00,000/- to avoid the criminal case. Senthilkumar was representing on behalf of petitioner. From the statement of defacto complainant and Chellamuthu, it is clearly evident that this petitioner/A3 and his son/A4 had clearly tried to subvert/divert the process of investigation, by getting a complaint from the defacto complainant, as if he had no suspicion in the death of his parents, to save the first accused from the murder case. In the said circumstances, this Court cannot subscribe to the views expressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has no role in this case. May be that, he had no role in the murder, but he had definite and defined role in subverting/diverting the course of investigation in this case. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶9Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. mra

26.07.2023 Index :Yes/No Internet:Yes Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order To

¶1The Inspector of Police Mangalampet Police Station Cuddalore District. (Crime No.24 of 2022)

¶2The Public Prosecutor,

Madras High Court,

Chennai. G.CHANDRASEKHARAN,J. mra order in

26.07.2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Orders reserved on 21.07.2023 Orders pronounced on 26.07.2023 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN Poomalai ... Petitioner Vs. State represented by The Inspector of Police Mangalampet Police Station Cuddalore District. (Crime Mno.24 of 2022) ... Respondent This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest by the respondent police concerned in Crime No.24 of 2022 pending on the file of the respondent police, on such terms and conditions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper. For Petitioner : Mr.S.N.Arunkumar For Respondent : Mr.N.S.Suganthan Government Advocate (Crl. Side)