Madras HC denies bail to four retired cops in 1999 custodial death case
A bench of justices AD Jagadish Chandira and R Poornima passed the order on the petitions filed by Subbiah, S Ramakrishnan, Jeyasekaran and Veerabahu = to suspend the life sentence imposed on them on April 5, 2025, for brutally assaulting C Vincent of West Alangarathattu in 1999, resulting in his death.
While their appeal against the order is pending, the petitioners moved the court seeking suspension of sentence and release on bail.
Ramakrishnan's counsel said that his name was not found in the RDO's report or the complaint. The fact that he was implicated belatedly after several years has caused grave prejudice to him in defending his case, he claimed. The entire trial is vitiated on account of the procedural violations and non-conduct of independent police investigation, which is mandated under Section 176 of CrPC, he further said.
Stating that he has to undergo a cardiac surgery, he sought bail. The other petitioners too denied their involvement and claimed their presence at the station at the time of occurrence has not been proved properly.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
20 hours ago
- New Indian Express
SC slams delay in Senthil Balaji cash-for-jobs case; over 1,000 accused yet to receive summons
CHENNAI: As the Supreme Court turns the heat on the Tamil Nadu government over the delay in trial in the cash-for-jobs scam involving former minister V Senthil Balaji, official data show that the special court conducting the trial in the cases is yet to serve summonses to around 1,000 of the 2,202 accused. Terming the trial a 'rudderless ship', a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi on Wednesday asked the prosecution to come up with a timeframe to complete the trial. 'A cricket stadium will be needed to conduct trial in the case where over 2,000 persons have been implicated as accused,' the SC bench said on Wednesday. Data show that the special court faces an uphill task as the serving of summonses to the accused, who are from different parts of Tamil Nadu, is likely to be completed only by December this year. The next challenge will be to serve the copies of all documents, including the chargesheet filed by the Greater Chennai Police and material evidence, to the accused — a mandatory procedure under Section 207 of the CrPc. Each accused will have to be given 3,270 documents covering approximately one lakh pages and some material objects that include devices containing extensive digital evidence. The case is being heard by the special court for trial of criminal cases related to MPs and MLAs in Chennai. It has been almost 10 years since the FIR was registered and more than four years since the Chennai Police's Central Crime Branch (CCB) filed the chargesheet in the case on March 8, 2021.
Hindustan Times
a day ago
- Hindustan Times
Ghaziabad court acquits two in stalking case, orders perjury action against complainant
A Ghaziabad court on July 29 acquitted two men accused of stalking a 13-year-old girl in 2019 and directed police to register a case under Section 344 of the CrPC against the complainant—the girl's mother—for allegedly filing a false FIR and giving misleading testimony in court. The FIR was registered against the two named suspects based on input from a police informer, following which both were taken into custody. (Getty Images/iStockphoto) The accused had been booked under IPC sections 354(d)(1)(i) (stalking), 504 (intentional insult), and 507 (criminal intimidation by anonymous communication), along with provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Pocso) Act. The FIR was lodged at Kavi Nagar police station on March 25, 2019. The chargesheet was filed on August 5, 2019. Special judge (Pocso) Lal Babu Yadav, while acquitting the two men, stated in his order that the complainant 'lodged an FIR on the basis of wrong facts... and deliberately gave false evidence in the court. So, a case under section 344 of the CrPC be registered against the complainant, and thereafter notice be issued.' During the trial, four prosecution witnesses were examined, including the girl, her mother, and two police officers. The defence presented no witnesses. Sub-inspector Ajay Verma told the court that the FIR was registered against the two named suspects based on input from a police informer, following which both were taken into custody. In court, the girl's mother said she had filed the complaint based on information provided by others and that the two accused were not involved. 'I wrote in my complaint whatever people at the spot told me. The two accused present in the court were not involved in the incident,' she testified. She was declared a hostile witness. The girl testified that she had been stalked but said, 'The two accused present in the court were not those two,' and could not identify who had hurled abuses. She too was declared hostile. Special public prosecutor (Pocso) Satish Sharma said he would respond to the judgement but did not take HT's calls later.
Time of India
a day ago
- Time of India
Witness no-show, court acquits man in 28-year-old case in Noida
Noida: A city court on Tuesday acquitted a man of the charges of criminal intimidation (506 IPC), assault and use of criminal force on public servant to deter them from their duty (353 IPC) and intentional insult to provoke breach of peace (504 IPC) allegedly committed 28 years ago. The court issued summons to witnesses in the case — that took place in May 1997— and as none appeared, it concluded that the prosecution failed to prove its case through recording evidence or statements of witnesses against Sunil Kumar of Haraula village's Sector 5. Pointing out since the accused was out on bail, the court directed him to deposit two bonds of Rs 25,000 each in the court under Section 437A of the CrPC. You Can Also Check: Noida AQI | Weather in Noida | Bank Holidays in Noida | Public Holidays in Noida Judge Ravi Kumar Sagar said that sufficient time was given to the prosecution to present witnesses or evidence to support their claim, but to no avail. "The opportunity for presenting prosecution witnesses in the case was closed on June 19, 2025 after which it became mandatory to dispose of the case in favour of the accused," the court observed. It delivered the verdict while clearing backlog cases.
