Venkatesan vs State, rep. by Inspector of Police

S. Tamilvanan, J.—The Petitioners in MP. No 1/2014 in Crl.A. No 246/2014 are arrayed as A2, A3. A4. A5, A7 & A9 and the Petitioner in M.P No. 1 2014 in Crl. A. No. 253/2014 is arrayed as A6 out of 10 Accused and they have been convicted and sentenced by the learned Sessions Judge for exclusive Trial of Bomb Blast Cases, at Poonamallee, in SC No. 12/2001 dated 24.3 2014 as follows:

Rank of the Accused

Conviction under Section

Sentence Awarded

A2

120-B. 14N 452, 398, 332 r/w 149, 307 r/w 149 and 302 r/w 14 IPC

(a) Sentenced to undergo 7 years� RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 and in default to undergo 6 months'' RI for the offence under Section 120-B. IPC

(b)Sentenced to undergo 2 years� RI for the offences under Sections 148 IPC

(c)Sentenced to undergo 7 years'' RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 and in default, 6 months� RI for the each of the offence under Section 452 & 398 IPC

(d)Sentenced to undergo 2 years'' RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 and in default to undergo 6 months'' RI for the offence under section 332 r/w 149, IPC

(e) Sentenced to undergo 10 years'' RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 and in default, to undergo 6 months'' RI for the offence under Section 307 r/w 149, IPC

(f)Sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1.000 and in default, to undergo 6 months� RI for the offence under Section 302 r/w 149. IPC

A3

120-B. 148 452, 398, 332, 333, 307 (2 counts), 302, 398 r/w 149, 332 r/w 149, 307 r/w 149, IPC

(a)Sentenced to undergo 7 years� RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 and in default to undergo 6 months� RI for the offence under Section 120-B, IPC

(b)Sentenced to undergo 2 years'' RI for the offence under Section 148. IPC

(c)Sentenced to undergo 7 years'' RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 and in default, to undergo 6 months� RI for the each of the offences under Sections 452. 398 r/w 149. IPC

(d)Sentenced to undergo 2 years'' RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 and in default, to undergo 6 months'' RI for each of the offence under Sections 332 & 332 r/w 139, IPC

(e)Sentenced to undergo 5 years� RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 and in default, to undergo 6 months'' RI for the offence under Section 333. IPC 3

(f) Sentenced to undergo 10 years'' RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 1500 and in default, to undergo 6 months� RI for each count of the offence under Section 307. IPC

(g) Sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 and in default, to undergo 6 months'' RI for the offence under Section 302. IPC

(h)Sentenced to undergo 10 years� RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 and in default, to undergo 6 months� RI for the offence under Section 307 r/w 149. IPC

A4

120-B. 148, 452, 332, 307 (2 counts), 333, 332 r/w 149, 307 r/w 149, 302 r/w 149, 398 r/w 149, IPC

(a)Sentenced to undergo 7 years'' RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 and in default to undergo 6 months� RI for the offence under Section 120-B. 1PC

(b) Sentenced to undergo 2 years� RI for the offence under Section 148. IPC

(c) Sentenced to undergo 7 years� RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 and in default, to undergo 6 months'' RI for the each of the offences under Sections 452, 398 r/w 149. IPC

(d) Sentenced to undergo 2 years� RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 and in default, to undergo 6 months� RI for each of the offence under Sections 332 & 332 r/w 149. IPC

(e) Sentenced to undergo 5 years� RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 and in default, to undergo 6 months� RI for the offence under Section 333, IPC

(f) Sentenced to undergo 10 years'' RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 and in default, to undergo 6 months� RI for each count of the offence under Section 307, IPC

(g)Sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1.000 and in default, to undergo 6 months RI for the offence under Section 302 r/w 149, IPC

(h)Sentenced to undergo 10 years� RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 and in default, to undergo 6 months'' RI for the offence under Section 307 r/W 149. IPC

A5

148.,452, 332 r/w 149, 307 r/w 149 (2 counts), 302, 333 r/w 149, 398 r/w 149, IPC

(a) Sentenced to undergo 2 years'' RI for the offence under Section 148. IPC

(b)Sentenced to undergo 7 years'' RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 and in default, to undergo 6 months'' RI for the each of the offences under Sections 452, 398 r/w 149. IPC

(c) Sentenced to undergo 2 years'' RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 and in default, to undergo 6 months'' RI for the offence under Section 332 r/w 149, IPC

(d) Sentenced to undergo 10 years� RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 and in default, to undergo 6 months'' RI for each count of the offence under Section 307 r/w 149, IPC

(e) Sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1.000 and in default, to undergo 6 months� RI for the offence under Section 302, IPC

(f) Sentenced to undergo 5 years� RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 and in default, to undergo 6 months� RI for the offence under Section 333 r/w 149. IPC

A7

148, 452, 332 r/w 149, 307 r/w 149, 302 r/w 149, 333 r/w 149, 398, IPC

(a) Sentenced to undergo 2 years'' RI for the offence under Section 148. IPC

(b) Sentenced to undergo 7 years'' RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 and in default, to undergo 6 months'' RI for the each of the offence under Sections 452 & 398. IPC

(c) Sentenced to undergo 2 years'' RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 and in default, to undergo 6 months� RI for the offence under Section 332 r/w 149, IPC

(d)Sentenced to undergo 10 years'' RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 and in default, to undergo 6 months ''RI for the offence under Section 307 r/w 149, IPC

(e)Sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1.000 and in default, to undergo 6 months'' RI for the offence under Section 302 r/w 149, IPC

(f) Sentenced to undergo 5 years'' RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 and in default, to undergo 6 months� RI for the offence under Section 333 r/w 149. IPC

A9

148, 452, 332 r/w 149 (3 counts), 333 r/w 149 (3 counts), 307 (4 cunts), 302, 398 r/w 149, IPC

(a) Sentenced to undergo 2 years'' RI for the offence under Section 148. IPC

(b) Sentenced to undergo 7 years� RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 and in default, to undergo 6 months'' RI for the each of the offences under Sections 452, 398 r/w 149. IPC

(c) Sentenced to undergo 2 years� RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 and in default, to undergo 6 months'' RI for each count of the offence under Section 333 r/w 149. IPC

(d)Sentenced to undergo 5 years� RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 and in default, to undergo 6 months� RI for each count of the offence under Section 333 r/w 149. IPC

(e) Sentenced to undergo 10 years'' RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 and in default, to undergo 6 months� RI for each count of the offence under Section 307, IPC

(f) Sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1.000 and in default, to undergo 6 months� RI for the offence under Section 392, IPC

The above sentences were ordered to run concurrently Before the committal of the case, the 2nd Accused in the charge-sheet, Lenin @ Mahalingam@ Ganesan, died and the total number of Accused is arrayed as A1 to A9.

The case of the prosecution is that in order to gather arms and ammunitions for creating a revolution against the Government of india, the Accused persons along with the approver one Elangomani, as the Members of the "Tamizar Viduthalai Padai". entered into a Criminal conspiracy on 03.04.1991 at 00.00 hours and decided to commit rioting at Puthur Police Station in pursuance of the said Criminal conspiracy, on 06.04 1991 at 9.00 pm. all the Accused formed an unlawful assembly in order to commit riot and to gain arms and ammunitions illegally from the Puthur Police Station. In furtherance of the same, on 7.04.1991, at 2.00 a m , all the Accused including the approver Elangomani, trespassed into the Puthur Police Station A2 to A10 were armed with country made bombs, guns and revolvers and other deadly weapons. The Police personnels, viz.. PWs 1, 3 & 4 who are Sundaravadhanam (Sub-Inspector of Police), Shanmugam (Grade-I Police Constable). Rajaram (Police Constable) and one Sundaramurthy (Head Constable), were on their duty at the time when the Accused trespassed into the Police Station. The overt acts attributed to each of the Accused are as follows:

Name of the Accused

Attacked

Soo @ Sundaram @ Ramasamy @ Anbazhagan

Criminal conspiracy

Lenin (dead)

Fired Sundarmurthy with a gun on his right things and buttocks

Elavarasan @ Pandiyan @ Vallavan

Attacked PW4 (Rajaram) with a Veecharuval on the right side back of scalp, on the right side of the scapular region and on the right side of the neck and prevented PW4 in discharging his duly

He has also attacked PW3 (Shanmugam) with Veecharuval on the right back of the chest and right upper arm

Attacked the deceased Rajendran with Veecharuval and caused indiscriminate cut injuries all over his body

Venkatesan and Senguttuvan @ Sevier @ Manimaran

Attempted to commit theft of arms and ammunitions from the Arms room of the Puthur Police Station

Amulraj @ Selvam

Attacked PW1 (Sundaravadhanam) with Veecharuval on the right finger and in between ring and middle finger

Attacked PW3 (Shanmugam) with Veecharuval on the left side back of the chest, left middle forearm and left middle finger Attacked the deceased Rajendran with Veeclianival and caused indiscriminate cut injuries all over his body

Munigesan

Chased the deceased Rajendran with aruval caused indiscriminate cut injuries all over the body

Kumar @ Gopal

Attacked PW4 (Rajaram) with a short knife on the left middle finger, left upper arm.

Attacked Sundaramurthy with the knife on the left eyebrow, left nostril and right clavicle bone

Nnllarasu

Attacked the deceased Rajendran with Veecharuval and caused indiscriminate cut injuries all over his body.

Ravi @ Velmurugan

Attacked Sundaramurthy with Pichuva knife on the right palm

Elangomani

Criminal trespass

The deceased Rajendran (Police Constable) succumbed to the injuries instantaneously.

The Accused-Elangomani turned as an Approver and he was examined as PW2.

Mr. C Vijayakumar learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners A2, A3, A4, A5, A7 & A9 in Crl. A. No 246/2014 would submit that during the time of the alleged occurrence from the evening of 06.04 1991 till the early morning of 7.04.1991, there was no electric supply in and around the Puthur Police Station and hence, the possibility of identifying the Accused, a mob of people, in total darkness, cannot be accepted The said fact of non-supply of electricity during the occurrence period was also substantiated by the evidence of PWs 1, 3 & 4 it is also submitted that the FIR was registered after a long delay of time. The FIR was registered on 07.04.1991 at 11.30 a m. while the occurrence had taken place at 2.00 a.m, he would also submit that none of the Accused were named in the FIR and it has been stated that 15 people had involved in the occurrence. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet in this case was filed as against 10 persons only after two years from the date of occurrence and that first set of charges was framed against the Accused only in the year 2007 Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners/ A2 to A5, A7 & A9 would submit that no independent witness was examined on the side of the prosecution to strengthen its case. Hence, he would submit that since the prosecution case suffers from serious infirmities and inconsistencies, the Petitioners/A2 to A5, A7 & A9 are entitled to, for the suspension of the sentence.

Mr. S. Ashok Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner/A6 in M.P No. 1/2014 in Crl.A No.253/2014, while adopting the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners/A2, A3, A4, A5, A7 & A9 in Crl.A No.246/2014, would contend that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the same suffers from serious infirmities and inconsistencies. The learned Senior Counsel would contend that the eyewitnesses, PWs. 1, 3 & 4 could not have witnessed the occurrence at all as none of them had spoken anything against the Petitioner/A6 [Ravi @ Velmurugan] and there are material contradictions in their evidences, which would go to the root of the prosecution case he would further submit that PW1. for the first time before the Court, had stated that one Krishnan [LW6] came to Puthur Police Station on 06.04.1991 to verify the status of the case in Cr. No 43/1991 and due to non-availability of bus he stayed in the Police Station itself But, PW1 has not made a mention about the said Krishnan either in the Complaint [Ex.Pl] or in the Section 161 statement The said fact was also confirmed by PW47 [Selvin Inspector of Katt umanannarkudi Police Station and Puthur Police Station at the relevant point of time, who investigated the case Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that even as per the chief examination of PW47, the Investigating Officer, the investigation was conducted by him only after a period of 1� months from the date of occurrence and it was stated to him that a mob consisting of 15 persons had involved in the occurrence and the same was recorded in the FIR as well as in the Complaint it is the further version of PW 47 that none of the eyewitnesses have given any identification of any of the Accused persons in the Complaint.

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner/A6 would contend that Ex P64-FIR is a concocted Report and the earliest information given by PW3 to his higher officials prior to the examination of PW3 by PW47 on O8.04.1991. was suppressed. It is the further evidence of PW3 in Ins cross-examination that the higher officials who came to the scene of occurrence and enquired him, did not receive any Complaint or statement from him PW 47 -the Investigating Officer in his cross-examination, has clearly admitted that when he visited the scene of occurrence. PWs. 1, 3 & 4 were present and that he did not register any FIR at that time Hence, it is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner/A6 that the FIR in this case is a fabricated one and would submit that once the FIR is a concocted one, the entire prosecution case would collapse and falls to ground.

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner/A6 would submit that no credence could be placed on the evidence of PW2 [Approver] because PW2 himself has stated in his statement recorded under Section 164, Cr.P.C., before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Cuddalore that he was forced to give a statement by the Police and that he was arrested on 27.05.1991 itself , but was produced before the learned Magistrate only on 08.06.1991 But, in his evidence before the Court, PW2 has stated that he was arrested and remanded on 08 06.1991 only. Further, no Test Identification Parade was conducted in respect of A6 and the said Identification parade was conducted 1� years after the date of occurrence and that no specific overt act has been attributed to A6 The alleged recovery of the weapons by the Respondent-Police is also doubtful Hence, he prayed for the suspension of sentences in respect of the Petitioner/A6 in Crl.A. No 253/2014.

Per contra, Mr. S. Shunmugavelayutham, learned Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr R. Prathap Kumar, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) contended that the prosecution has established its case beyond all reasonable doubts and the minor discrepancies found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses will not affect the prosecution case in its entirety While strongly opposing for the grant of the relief of suspension of sentences, he drew the attention of this Court to the written objection filed by the State, that there are specific overt act against the Petitioner/A6 herein Further, he adds that the prosecution case is supported by the injured eyewitnesses, PWs 1, 3 & 4 and by the eyewitnesses, PW2 [Elangomani-Accused turned Approver] and Sundaramurthy and Krishnan [both died before the commencement of the trial] He would further submit that there is a specific overt act against A6/ Petitioner in M.P. No 1/2014 in Crl A. No. 253/2014 of attacking Sundaramurthy and PW1 The medical evidence also corroborates the version of the prosecution witnesses, PWs l, 3 & 4 Learned Public Prosecutor would submit that A6 has got two previous cases.

Learned Public Prosecutor while vehemently objecting for the grant of the relief of suspension of sentences to the Petitioners/A2 to A5, A7 & A9 in M.P No. 1/2014 in Crl.A No.246/2014, based on the Written Objection filed by the State, would submit that there are specific overt acts against each of the Petitioners herein. He would submit that A3, A4, A6 & A9 used deadly weapons in the occurrence and each of them has specific overt acts and according to him, the said overt acts are also corroborated by the Medical evidence and various Criminal cases are pending against them, hence, he would submit that it is not a fit case to grant the relief sought for by the Petitioners in both the Appeals.

We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner/A6; the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners/A2 to A5, A7 & A9 and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State we have also gone through the Affidavits filed in support of the above Miscellaneous Petitions and the Counter Affidavits filed on behalf of the Respondent/State and the impugned Judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court.

Mr C. Vijayakumar, learned Counsel and Mr. Ashok Kumar, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the Petitioners/Accused herein are nothing to do with the alleged occurrence, however, they have been falsely implicated in the case, without any prima facie material against them, merely on the ground that there were some other Criminal cases pending against them They further submitted that there was ail alleged sexual harassment and abuse of one village woman, by name, Annakili at the Police Station by the Inspector of Police, hence, the villagers in and around the area of the Police Station had raised agitation for taking action against the Police official, in which some prominent Political Leaders, Mr. L. Ilayaperumal and certain Labour Leaders had also joined and that was published in various local Newspapers However, no action was taken against the Police Inspector and others, hence, a mob of village people attacked the Police Station, as they could not get justice for the atrocity caused against a village woman As there was no power supply during the time of the alleged occurrence, for about several hours, even as per the evidence of Prosecution Witnesses, in the Complaint given by the de facto Complainant, names of the Accused could not be stated. Similarly, in the original FIR, it is stated that 15 Accused had entered into the Police Station and attacked the Police officials, suppressing tire fact Even there is no specific identification about the Accused in the Complaint and the FIR, though the complainant and all alleged eye witnesses were only Police officials.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioners further argued that the Petitioners/ Accused were active in raising their voice towards safeguarding the rights of the working class and also for the cause of woman and only at the instance of some powerful persons, earlier Criminal cases were filed against the Petitioners herein Had the offence been committed by the Petitioners/Accused herein, as they were already known as Accused in the earlier cases, the de facto Complainant and other alleged eye witnesses, who are Police officials could easily mentioned at least some of the names of the Petitioners/Accused. There is no personal enmity between the Petitioners Accused and the deceased and other Police officials, however, the case was foisted by impleading the Petitioners, who are fighting for the cause of the working class, as if they are attempting to separate the Nation, by attacking a Police Station.

At the outset, it is to be stated that the occurrence is said to have been taken place in the year 1991 A perusal of the evidence of the Prosecution Witnesses, the Exhibits marked on the side of the prosecution and the impugned judgment of conviction, would reveal that there are certain major discrepancies and infirmities in the prosecution case. It is an admitted fact that in the FIR. it is stated that 15 unnamed Accused had entered into the scene of occurrence and attacked the Police Station during night hours, when there was no power supply There was no identification marks or other details of the Accused in the Complaint as well as in the FIR. As per the evidence of Rajaram [PW4] working as Sentry at the relevant point of time, there was no electricity supply from the evening of 06.04.1991 till 2.00 a.m. on 07.04.1991. But, the evidence of PWs 1 and 3 is contrary and varies from the evidence of PW4, as PWs 1 & 3 have stated that though there was no electricity supply from the evening of 06.04.1991. the electricity supply came at 11.00 p.m. on the same day itself On going through the evidence of PWs 1, 3 & 4. it is crystal clear that there is no possibility for identification of the Accused as the occurrence had taken place when the place of occurrence was filled with darkness, that is the reason why the alleged eye witnesses could not give any specific identification marks of the Petitioners/Accused herein.

Yet another important aspect in the case is regarding the conduction of Test Identification Parade by PW42 [Judicial Magistrate No. II, Cuddalore] on 21.06.1991. The occurrence had taken place on 07.04.1991. at 2.00 a.m. whereas the Identification Parade was conducted on 21.06.1991. But it is to be seen that even prior to the conduction of the Identification Parade, the Accused were produced before the Court concerned Hence, the very purpose of conducting the Identification Parade goes off and the said parade was conducted nearly after 2� months from the date of occurrence Moreover, none of the Eyewitnesses have given any identification marks of any of the Accused. As argued by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners/Accused, when the Identification Parade itself had turned futile, the prosecution case becomes doubtful. Further, A6 in this case was arrested after a period of 4� months. The motive aspect also is not clearly proved by the prosecution.

The other important aspect of the prosecution is that 15 persons had trespassed into the Police Station, as per the FIR [Ex P. 64] and committed the offence of attacking the Police officials who were on duty and also committed murder of Rajendran, a Police Constable. But a thorough reading of the Inquest Report [ExP.66] prepared by PW47- the Investigating Officer would reveal that the dead body of Rajendran was found in a thorny bush. 300 metres away from the Police Station and that he was wearing only an underwear Had the deceased really been on official duty, definitely he would have worn his uniform and there is no proper explanation offered by the prosecution to this discrepancy It is also seen in the Inquest Report that the deceased was attacked by 15 persons due to previous enmity However, the prosecution has not stated what was the previous enmity between the Petitioners Accused herein and the deceased and other Police officials. The prosecution has not stated as to why there had been a mass attack on the particular Police Station by the villagers, on the date of occurrence and there is no whisper about the alleged agitation made by village people, on the alleged sexual harassment and abuse of a village woman, Annakili by Police Inspector These vital and serious doubtful circumstances of the prosecution evidence would likely be fatal to the case of the prosecution Further, one of the Accused, upon enlarging on bail pending trial, had married a differently-abled lady and is leading a peaceful life. Merely because the Petitioners have got previous cases, that alone cannot be a sole ground to deny the relief of suspension of sentences to them. We are of the considered view that this Court should be strict in granting suspension of sentence in any sensitive Criminal case and at this stage, benefit of doubt cannot be given in favour of the Accused.

It is seen that A2, A5, A7, A8, A9 were already undergone ten years'' imprisonment; A3 had already undergone 5 years ''imprisonment, A4 had already undergone 2 years'' imprisonment and A6 had already undergone 2� years'' imprisonment.

In Kishori Lal v. Rupa, 2004 (7) SCC 638, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held as follows :

"4. Section 389 of the Code deals with suspension of execution of sentence pending the Appeal and release of the Appellant on bail There is a distinction between bail and suspension of sentence. One of the essential ingredients of Section 389 is the requirement for the Appellate Court to record reasons in writing for ordering suspension of execution of the sentence or Order appealed against If he is in confinement, the said Court can direct that he be released on bail or his own bond The requirement of recording reasons in writing clearly indicates that there has to be careful consideration of the relevant aspects and the order directing suspension of sentence and grant of bail should not be passed as a matter of routine.

the Appellate Court is duty-bound to objectively assess the matter and to record reasons for the conclusion that the case warrants suspension of execution of sentence and grant of bail In the instant case, the only factor which seems to have weighed with the High Court for directing suspension of sentence and grant of bail is the absence of allegation of misuse of liberty, during the earlier period when the Respondent- Accused were on bail."

Similarly in Anwari Begum v. Sher Mohammad, 2005 (7) SCC 326, it was held by the Hon''ble Apex Court thus

"7. Even on a cursory perusal the High Court''s Order shows complete non-application of mind Though a detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case is to be avoided by the Court while passing Orders on Bail Applications, yet a Court dealing with the Bail Application should be satisfied as to whether there is a prima facie case, but exhaustive exploration of the merits of the case is not necessary. The Court dealing with the Application for bail is required to exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course.

There rs a need to indicate in the order reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted, particularly where an Accused was charged of having committed a serious offence. It is necessary for the Courts dealing with Application for bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail, they are:

The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence;

Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant;

Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge "

Sunil Kumar v. Vipin Kumar, AIR 2014 SC 3400, the Hon''ble Apex Court has held that the Accused convicted for charge of murder, while on hail, not misused liberty on earlier bail and possibility of hearing the Appeal in near future was remote, hence grant of bail could be justified The decision reads thus:

"18. We have heard the rival legal contentions raised by both the parties We are of the opinion that the High Court has rightly applied its discretionary power under Section 389 of Cr.P.C, to enlarge the Respondents on bail Firstly, both the Criminal Appeal and Criminal Revision filed by both the parties are pending before the High Court, which means that the convictions of the Respondents are not confirmed by the Appellate Court. Secondly, it is an admitted fact that the Respondents had been granted bail earlier and they did not misuse the liberty.

Also, the Respondents had conceded to the occurrence of the incident though with a different version.

We are of the opinion that the High Court has taken into consideration all the relevant fact including the fact that the chance of Appeal being heard in the near future is extremely remove, hence, the High Court has released the Respondents on bail on the basis of sound legal reasoning. We do not wish to interfere with the decision of the High Curt at this stage."

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the overt act attributed against the Petitioners herein and taking into consideration of the fact that the Appeals are not likely to be taken up for final hearing in the near future, in the light of the decisions rendered by the Hon''ble Apex Court, we are of the considered view that it is a fit case to grant the relief of suspension of sentences to the Petitioners herein.

Accordingly, the substantive sentences of imprisonment alone are suspended and the each of the Petitioners are directed to be enlarged on bail on condition that each of the Petitioner shall execute a Bond for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- [Rupees ten thousand only] with two Sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge for Exclusive Trial of Bomb Blast Cases, at Poonamallee and on further condition that the Petitioners shall report before the said Court, daily at 10.30 a.m., on all working days of the Court below, until further Orders.