- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
State Of T.N v. S.A Raja .
Factual and Procedural Background
The prosecution alleges that on 31 December 2004, former Tamil Nadu Minister Aladi Aruna and his companion Ponraj were murdered while on a morning walk in Tirunelveli District. Several accused—designated A-1 to A-4—allegedly carried out the assault using a country-made revolver and aruval (sickle), resulting in the immediate deaths of both victims. The assailants escaped on a motorcycle.
The present respondent was arrested on 30 January 2005 on the allegation that he conspired in the killings due to rivalry over establishing engineering colleges in the area. Multiple bail applications followed:
- 31-1-2005: Bail denied by the District & Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli.
- 8-2-2005, 4-3-2005, 1-4-2005: Bail denied by the Madras High Court in successive Criminal Original Petitions.
- 18-4-2005: Supreme Court dismissed Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 2014 of 2005 challenging the High Court’s latest refusal.
- Subsequently, the respondent again sought bail; a Single Judge of the Madras High Court granted it, prompting the present State appeal to the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Madras High Court erred in granting bail to the respondent despite an earlier Supreme Court dismissal of his SLP and without any material change in circumstances.
- Whether reliance on an alleged retraction of a co-accused’s police statement and the respondent’s medical condition constituted sufficient new grounds for bail.
Arguments of the Parties
State/Appellant's Arguments
- No change of circumstances existed after the Supreme Court’s earlier dismissal; therefore, the High Court should not have entertained another bail application.
- The Single Judge erroneously accepted defence counsel’s assertion that a co-accused had retracted his confession; no valid Section 164 CrPC confession existed, only a police statement that cannot be used against the co-accused.
- The respondent is influential and poses a risk of tampering with evidence, as previously observed by another Single Judge on 1-4-2005.
Respondent's Arguments
- Submitted that a co-accused had retracted an earlier inculpatory statement during a video-conference with the Magistrate, undermining the prosecution case.
- Claimed to suffer from heart ailments requiring specialised medical treatment.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court noted that a coordinate Single Judge of the Madras High Court had earlier refused bail on 1 April 2005, and that refusal was upheld when the respondent’s SLP was dismissed on 18 April 2005. The Court emphasised that although the doctrine of res judicata does not strictly apply to bail proceedings, repetitive applications absent material change create undesirable precedent.
The Court found no substantive change in circumstances justifying the subsequent grant of bail. The purported retraction of a co-accused’s statement was not a legally recorded confession under Section 164 CrPC and therefore lacked probative value. Moreover, any attempt by the co-accused to alter his police statement could signal witness manipulation rather than exoneration of the respondent.
The respondent’s medical claims had already been placed before earlier courts and did not constitute new grounds. The Court reiterated prior judicial observations that the respondent’s influence could endanger the integrity of the evidence. Consequently, the High Court’s reliance on unverified assertions and previously rejected grounds was deemed erroneous.
Holding and Implications
Appeal Allowed; Bail Order Set Aside. The respondent is to be taken into custody forthwith. The Sessions Court is directed to conduct the trial expeditiously.
Implications: The decision underscores that successive bail applications must demonstrate a bona fide change in circumstances; otherwise, they risk fostering inconsistent orders and potential abuse of process. No new legal precedent was established beyond reaffirming prudent bail practice.
K.G Balakrishnan, J.— Leave granted.
2. An order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Madras at Madurai granting bail to the respondent herein is challenged before us. The respondent is one of the accused in a criminal case charged by the Inspector of Alangulam Police Station in Tirunelveli district. The charges are under Sections 147, 148, 120-B, 341, 302, 207, 212 and 109 IPC read with Section 25(1) of the Arms Act.
3. The brief case of the prosecution is that one Aladi Aruna, an ex-Minister of the Government of Tamil Nadu, had gone for a morning walk along with one Ponraj on 31-12-2004. At about 7.15 a.m while Aladi Aruna, Ponraj and one Socraties were walking through Pashupati Road, accused A-3 accompanied by A-2 and A-4 intercepted Aladi Aruna and A-3 attempted to shoot him with his country-made revolver but the revolver did not work whereupon A-2 inflicted injuries on Aladi Aruna with aruval (sickle) on the back of his head and when his friend Ponraj tried to save him, he was also attacked by A-4 who inflicted injuries on his neck and head. Socraties also tried to save them, but A-2, A-3 and A-4 turned against him and he could manage to escape from the scene of occurrence. A-1, who was also present at the place of occurrence, warned A-2, A-3 and A-4 since he sensed that somebody was coming and all of them ran away from the place of incident. Aladi Aruna and Ponraj died at the spot. The accused persons fled from the place on a motorbike.
4. On the basis of the information collected during the investigation, the present respondent was arrested on 30-1-2005. The prosecution alleged that the respondent had a strong motive to do away with Aladi Aruna as there were disputes between the respondent and the deceased Aladi Aruna. The respondent has engineering colleges at Tirunelveli and Nagercoil. In 2000, he started another engineering college at Athiyuthu, Alangulam. The prosecution alleged that the deceased Aladi Aruna had started another engineering college near the college run by the respondent and, on account of this, there were disputes between the respondent and Aladi Aruna. The respondent entered into a conspiracy with the other accused and pursuant to that Aladi Aruna and Ponraj were killed on the date of the incident. During the course of investigation, the present respondent was implicated and was arrested on 30-1-2005.
5. The respondent filed a bail application before the District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli. The learned District and Sessions Judge dismissed the bail application on 31-1-2005. Thereafter, the respondent moved another bail application before the High Court by filing Criminal OP No. 1242 of 2005. The High Court dismissed that application on 8-2-2005. The order passed by the High Court was challenged before this Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 998 of 2005. Later on, the respondent withdrew that SLP and moved the High Court by filing Criminal OP No. 2439 of 2005. The High Court dismissed that application on 4-3-2005. Again, he moved the High Court by filing OP No. 2862 of 2005, but withdrew that application on 21-3-2005. On 1-4-2005 again, he moved another application for bail by filing Criminal OP No. 3242 of 2005 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by an elaborate order. The learned Single Judge made certain observations in that order. It was observed that:
“While there is a confession statement recorded from one of the accused, the recovery of the part of the amount, which has been received by the hirelings from A-10, is also brought to the notice of the Court. In the instant case, this Court is able to see force in the contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that in a case like this, if the petitioner, who, according to the prosecution, is very influential, is bailed out, there is every possibility of tampering with the evidence. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the view that though the charge-sheet is laid in the case, it is not a fit case for granting bail.”
The respondent challenged that order in SLP (Criminal) No. 2014 of 2005 and this Court dismissed the same on 18-4-2005.
6. Thereafter, the respondent again moved an application for bail before the High Court of Madras and by the impugned order, the learned Single Judge of the High Court granted bail to the respondent with certain conditions and that order is challenged before us.
7. We heard learned counsel for the State and also Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the respondent.
8. The learned counsel for the State submitted that after this Court had dismissed the SLP filed by the respondent, the learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court should not have granted bail when there was no change of circumstances. The learned Single Judge in the impugned order had stated that the counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the co-accused has retracted his confession during the video conference with the Magistrate concerned. Although this fact was denied by the Government Advocate, the learned Judge relied on the statement made by the petitioner's counsel and granted bail to the respondent herein. In fact, there was no retracted confession as alleged by the present respondent before the learned Magistrate. It is true that one of the accused who had implicated the present respondent made an attempt to retract the confession. There was no confession recorded by the Magistrate under Section 164 CrPC and it seems that one of the accused had given some statement to the police during the course of the investigation. We are told that that witness had filed an application before the court that his statement should again be recorded by the police. We fail to understand why that accused is anxious to retract the statement made to the police officer which evidently cannot be used against him. The accused must have been trying to protect somebody by making contradictory statements before the police. In the impugned order, it is also mentioned that the respondent herein was suffering from some illness and he was a heart patient and needs effective treatment from an efficient doctor. All these facts must have been stated by the respondent in his previous applications. When there was no change of circumstances, the learned Judge may not have granted bail to the respondent. In the order passed on 1-4-2005, the learned Single Judge had stated that the respondent herein was likely to influence the witnesses. That order was challenged before this Court and this Court declined to interfere with that order. Within a short period, the impugned order was passed without adverting to any of the points dealt with by the learned Single Judge who declined to grant bail to the respondent.
9. When a learned Single Judge of the same court had denied bail to the respondent for certain reasons and that order was unsuccessfully challenged before the appellate forum, without there being any major change of circumstances, another fresh application should not have been dealt with within a short span of time unless there were valid grounds giving rise to a tenable case for bail. Of course, the principles of res judicata are not applicable to bail applications, but the repeated filing of the bail applications without there being any change of circumstances would lead to bad precedents.
10. There are strong allegations against the respondent but we do not propose to advert to any of the evidence collected against him. Though the respondent's name was not mentioned in the FIR, it is alleged that he is one of the conspirators and he had a motive to do away with one of the deceased persons.
11. In the above circumstances, we allow this appeal, set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge and direct that the respondent be taken into custody forthwith. We further direct that as the final report has already been filed in the case, and if the case already stands committed to the Sessions Court, the Sessions Judge may complete the trial as expeditiously as possible.
Alert