The Madras High Court on 18th March 2021 released on bail one accused of a triple murder case. There were a total of 9 accused in the case out of which accused no. 8 was released.
The three deceased were parents and their married son. The son was married to accused no. 4. According to the prosecution case, accused no. 4 had disputes with her husband and thus she left her matrimonial house and started living at her paternal house in Maharashtra.
After few days Accused no. 1, who is the brother of accused no. 4 along with his three brothers (accused nos. 2, 3, 5) came to Chennai and went to accused no. 4’s husband’s house. There they demanded Rs. 5 Cr from the husband of accused no. 4 to resolve their matrimonial dispute.
The husband declined to give the money. Aggrieved by it, Accused No. 1 shot dead accused no. 4’s husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law using a country-made pistol.
The Chennai Police after investigation arrested 9 persons in the case. The petitioner is accused no. 8. The advocate on behalf of submitted that petitioner is accused no. 8 and has no direct involvement in the crime. The petitioner has been arrested only in section 29(b) of the Arms Act. There is no material available on record to show that the petitioner conspired with the other accused or abetted the other accused to commit murder.
If at all the petitioner committed any offense, it is only punishable under 29(b) of the Arms Act and there is no reason to rope him in the murder case. The advocate further submitted that now the investigation is completed, the final report has been filed. The petitioner is in jail for the past 65 days.
Hence bail should be granted to the petitioner.
The advocate on behalf of the prosecution contended that the petitioner has provided an unlicensed country-made pistol to accused no. 1 to commit the murders. Thus he has played a major role in the crime. If he is released on bail right now then he can tamper with the witnesses. Thus his bail should be rejected.
The HC observed that the main allegations were against accused nos. 1-5. The petitioner had only helped accused no. 7 to buy a country-side pistol. There is no material available on record to show that the petitioner also conspired along with other accused or abetted the accused of committing the crime.
The main allegation against the petitioner is only under section 29(b) of Arms Act.
As the petitioner is not directly in the commission of the crime and considering the period of incarceration he has suffered the Hon’ble HC released the petitioner on bail.
Stoy by Harshwardhan Pawar- Intern