Judgment : Petitioners Surla alias Sudalamuthu and Sunil Damodhar Pandv in Crl.O.P.No.14239 of 1997 and petitioners Pandit Chokka More and Annadurai alias Anna in Crl.O.P.No.14243 of 1997 have filed these application seeking bail under Sec.439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in respect of the case in S.C.No.178 of 1993 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Madras, relating to the offences under Secs.120-B, 326, 307, I.P.C. and 307 read with 34, I.P.C. 2. Mr.Sankarasubbu, counsel appearing for Surla and Sunil Damodhar Pandav, mainly contended that the first petitioner has been in judicial custody from 25.12.1992 onwards and the investigation, which has been transferred from state police to C .B.I. is not over and the respondent has not taken any care to file final report over one year and the second petitioner Sunil Damodhar Pandav also is in continued detention without progress in the trial and as such, they are entitled to bail. 3. During the course of the pendency of the application, it is further contended on the basis of the representation made by the Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent that final report has already been filed on 3.10.1997 after completing the investigation by the C.B.I, and since there was no prima facie material against the petitioner, that the detention of the petitioner Surla subsequent to the filing of the report is unnecessary and illegal and as such, he has to be released forthwith. 4. Mr. Manivasakam, counsel appearing for the other petitioners Padit Chokks More and Annadurai alias Anna, represent that the petitioners are innocent and they are in jail for more than four and half years and the second petitioner Annadurai alias Anna is suffering from the incurable disease AIDS and therefore, they have to be released on bail. 5. 4. Mr. Manivasakam, counsel appearing for the other petitioners Padit Chokks More and Annadurai alias Anna, represent that the petitioners are innocent and they are in jail for more than four and half years and the second petitioner Annadurai alias Anna is suffering from the incurable disease AIDS and therefore, they have to be released on bail. 5. Mr.P.Rajamanickam, Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would contend that Pandit Chokka More, Annadurai alias Anna and Sunil Damodhar Pandav are the main accused in this case, who have committed this grave crime of attacking a lady I.A.S. Officer by throwing acid on her in pursuance of a conspiracy and there are prima facie materials against them and more over these petitioners were released on bail previously but thereafter they absconded and non-bailable warrant was issued against them and the Police went to Bombay and arrested them and that therefore, the release of these petitioners especially when the final report has been filed by C.B.I, on 3.10.1997, which was taken on file in PRC 23 of 1997 before the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras, would result in their abscondance again. As far as the petitioner Surla is concerned, it is contended by the learned Special Public Prosecutor, the report has been filed before the Magistrate dropping the proceeding as against him since there are no prima facie materials available against him. However, it is pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor that though report has been filed dropping the proceedings as regards petitioner Surla, the learned Magistrate could pass only orders in the said report only after hearing the victim in this case as per the procedure laid down by the Apex Court. 6. The learned Special Public Prosecutor would further request this Court to issue notice to the victim also to decide the bail applications in view of the peculiar circumstances. Accordingly, this Court issued notice to the victim Ms.Chandralekha, I.A.S. (resigned). 7. On receipt of the same, the victim entered appearance before this Court through Mr.G.Rajagopalan learned counsel who represents her filed a counter affidavit opposing the applications for bail for all the petitioners by quoting various reasons. 8. Accordingly, this Court issued notice to the victim Ms.Chandralekha, I.A.S. (resigned). 7. On receipt of the same, the victim entered appearance before this Court through Mr.G.Rajagopalan learned counsel who represents her filed a counter affidavit opposing the applications for bail for all the petitioners by quoting various reasons. 8. During the pendency of those bail applications, Ms.Chandralekha has filed another petition in Crl.O.P.No.16615 of 1997, stating that in view of the referred report filed by the C.B.I in respect of the petitioner Surla before the Magistrate, prayed this court to direct the C.B.I to investigate further in S.C.No.178 of 1993 on the file of the IV Additional Sessions Judge, on the ground that the investigation which has been transferred to C.B.I had not been thoroughly made in this case. The said application is being separately dealt with. 9. Learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent, would however, contend that only after proper investigation, the final report has been filed and that this court could peruse the entire case Diary, containing the details of all the materials collected for coming to such a conclusion and after perusal, if this Court things fit, the respondent could very well be directed to make a further investigation by going into the other aspects of the case and file the report, and that respondent would be ready to comply with the said direction. 10. Before deciding the issue in the other petition for direction for further investigation, it would be better to go into question of granting bail in these two applications filed by the petitioner. 11. This case relates to the attempt on the life of Ms.V.S.Chandralekha, I.A.S. (now resigned) on 19.5.1992 at Gandhi-Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai, by throwing of acid on her body and face while she was travelling in her car to the office. One of the assailants was caught by the driver of the car and the public. The driver of the car gave the F.I.R. of the case to F2 Police Station, Egmore, where the name of the assailant came to light as Pandit Chokka More. The case was registered in Crime No.1395 of 1992 under Sec.307, I.P.C. In the investigation conducted by Egmore police, the involvement of the petitioners were brought to light. The driver of the car gave the F.I.R. of the case to F2 Police Station, Egmore, where the name of the assailant came to light as Pandit Chokka More. The case was registered in Crime No.1395 of 1992 under Sec.307, I.P.C. In the investigation conducted by Egmore police, the involvement of the petitioners were brought to light. After investigation, the Egmore Police filed charge-sheet against the petitioners for the offences under Secs.307, I.P.C., 120-B, 326, 307 r/w 34, I.P.C. After committal, the case was made over to the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai. 12. Out of these 4 petitioners, except Surla all the others have been arrested and released on bail during the course of investigation, The victim Chandralekha not being satisfied with the investigation done by the State Police, approached the Apex Court for a direction for a further investigation by the C.B.I. In the mean time, the absconding accused Surla was arrested and sent to judicial custody. 13. Ultimately, the Apex Court on 9.9.1996 directed further investigation by the C.B.I. In pursuance of the said order C.B.I, took up further investigation and filed the final report as referred to earlier. 14. The main objection raised by the Special Public Prosecutor as against the release of the petitioners Pandit Chokka More, Annadurai alias Anna, Sunil Damodhar Pandav, is that they hail from Bombay and the addresses given by them in their petitions are found to be false. Moreover, they have been previously released on bail and they have jumped bail thereafter and only on N.B.W. being issued by the Sessions Court, the petitioners were arrested in November, 1993 and produced before the court. He also contended that the petitioners are history-sheeters and involved in several criminal cases in Bombay and if they are released on bail, they would definitely abscond and flee from justice. 15. As far as the petitioner Surla is concerned, though the learned Special Public Prosecutor is not in a position to raise any objection in view of the fact that referred report has been filed by C.B.I., Mr.G.Rajagopalan, appearing for the first informant would object the bail applications for all the petitioners stating that merely because the referred report has been filed by the C.B.I, in respect of the petitioner Surla, it cannot be contended that Surla is innocent. He would further say that till the report is accepted by the court and the petitioner Surla is discharged, he continues to be an accused and that in the event of the magistrate not accepting the report in upholding the objection raised by the first informant, then the accused has to be necessarily tried by the trial court along with the other accused. So, on the basis of this concept, the first informant is opposing the bail applications on the ground that the petitioners if released on bail would not be available for trial and they would absent. 16. One another aspect is brought to my notice by the counsel appearing for the first informant, namely that even during the pendency of these bail applications, all the four petitioners, when they were produced before the IV Additional Sessions Judge, on 28.10.1997 while the said judge adjourned the matter by remanding them, they made an attempt to attack the Judge in the open court and the Judge had a miraculous escape, or otherwise, the Judge would have been killed. On the complaint given by the said Judge, it is represented that another case under Sec.307, I.P.C. has been registered against the petitioner and the same is pending investigation. 17. In such circumstances, grant of bail is opposed for all the petitioners by showing the conduct of these petitioners. He would further contend that the said incident which took place in the open court would show that they are not amenable to any law and if they are released on bail, the security of the first informant would also be under threat. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the state also would submit that the investigation relating to the attempt to attack the Judge is taken up by the Esplanade police and the same is still pending and in that case also, the petitioners have been remanded. 18. In the light of the submissions made by the respective parties, this court is called upon to decide the issue of granting bail. 19. At the outset, I must mention that the grounds urged by the counsel for the petitioners that they are suffering from AIDS and they are innocent and they have been in jail for a long period would not be of any use in deciding this question. 19. At the outset, I must mention that the grounds urged by the counsel for the petitioners that they are suffering from AIDS and they are innocent and they have been in jail for a long period would not be of any use in deciding this question. It is represented on behalf of the prosecution, that the petitioners who have been affected with AIDS have been given treatment and they have been admitted in separate words and as such the illness cannot be a ground for seeking bail previously, the petitioner Surla and another filed Crl.O.P.No.7456 of 1997, disposed by me on 16.6.1997 reported in Surla alias Sudalamuthu v. State Sudalamuthu v. State (1997)2 L. W. (Crl.) 443 contending that they were suffering from AIDS and that their days are numbered and they would definitely die and they may be permitted to go to Bombay, their native place to have their natural death. This court while considering their bail application observed that the relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, do not permit the court to grant bail to the accused persons to enable them to die since the meaning of the word bail is granting released of the person on his furnishing surety and giving undertaking to appeal again before court to face the trial. 20. Now the same ground has been urged before this court that some of the petitioners are suffering from AIDS. Mr.Sankarasubbu, counsel for the petitioners, placed reliance on the decisions in Maria Andre Leceerc v. State Maria Andre Leceerc v. State A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 1092 :1983 Crl.L.J. 1445 and Vakil Chand v. State of Haryana Vakil Chand v. State of Haryana (1996) Crl.L.J. 1461 to contend that the serious ailment can be taken into consideration for granting bail. 21. The decision in Vakil Chand v. State of Haryana Vakil Chand v. State of Haryana (1996) Crl.L.J. 1461 does not deal with the bail application while the case is pending trial. In that case, the court only recommended for a premature release under Sec.432 of the Code while the accused was undergoing life imprisonment in the jail. That direction was issued by the High Court in writ petition against the order rejecting premature release by the jail authorities while the prisoner was undergoing life imprisonment after conviction. 22. In that case, the court only recommended for a premature release under Sec.432 of the Code while the accused was undergoing life imprisonment in the jail. That direction was issued by the High Court in writ petition against the order rejecting premature release by the jail authorities while the prisoner was undergoing life imprisonment after conviction. 22. The decision Maria Andre Leceerc v. State Maria Andre Leceerc v. State A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 1092: Maria Andre Leceerc v. State Maria Andre Leceerc v. State 1983 Crl.L.J. 1445 relates to a case where the Apex Court permitted the life convict, being a woman to go to canada, which is her home country, to take treatment for cancer and then to come back to undergo the life imprisonment. This decision would not also apply to the present case, in view of the fact, according to the Special Public Prosecutor proper treatment has been given and more over, there is no prayer for interim bail as was sought in the referred to supra. 23. Yet another ground was urged on behalf of the petitioners that continued and long detention would be illegal without progress in the trial and as such they are entitled for the release. To substantiate this, the decision in Shaheen Welfare Association v. Union of India Shaheen Welfare Association v. Union of India [1996] 2 Supreme 469 has been cited. Counsel for the petitioner would point out the relevant observation on this aspect, which reads as follows: “Different approaches would be justified on the basis of the gravity of the charges. Adopting this approach, we are of the opinion that under trials falling within group (a) cannot receive liberal treatment. Counsel for the petitioner would point out the relevant observation on this aspect, which reads as follows: “Different approaches would be justified on the basis of the gravity of the charges. Adopting this approach, we are of the opinion that under trials falling within group (a) cannot receive liberal treatment. Cases of undertrials falling in group (b) would have to be differently dealt with, in that, if they have been in person for five years or more and their trial is not likely to be completed within the next six months, they can be released on bail unless the court comes to the conclusion that their antecedents are such that releasing them may be harmful to the lives of the complainant, the family members of the complainant, or witnesses cases of under trials falling in groups (c) and (d) can be dealt with leniently and they can be released if they have been in jail for three years and two years respectively.” But this also would not come to rescue in favour of the petitioners. This case was decided by the Apex Court, with reference to the 14th petition of bail to T.A.D.A. detenus. According to the Supreme Court, the undertrials under TADA Act, were divided into four classes, namely, (a) hard-core undertrials whose release would prejudice the prosecution case and whose liberty may prove to be a menace to society in general and to the complainant and prosecution witnesses in particular (b) other undertrials whose over acts or involvement directly attract Secs.3 and or 4 of the TADA Act (c) undertrials who are toped in, not because of any activity directly attracting Secs.3 and 4 but by virtue of Secs.120-B or 147, I.P.C. and (d) those undertrials who were found possessing incriminating articles in notifies areas and are booked under Sec.5 of TADA. So, this decision was given only in relation to the offenders under TADA. Even in respect of those offenders, the Apex Court held, dealing with class (a) that they should not be released on bail. So, this decision was given only in relation to the offenders under TADA. Even in respect of those offenders, the Apex Court held, dealing with class (a) that they should not be released on bail. As far as class (b) is concerned, it has been held, that if these persons re in prison for five years or more, they can be released an bail if the trial is not likely to be completed in the next future but if the court comes to the conclusion that their antecedents are not good and that their release would be harmful to the life of the complainant of the witnesses, they should not be released on bail. So, in this case, though petitioners and said to be in jail for four years. In view of the antecedents of the petitioners that they are history sheeters, involved in so many criminal cases in Bombay and three petitioners jumped bail in this case and their conduct of even attempting to murder the judge who is trying this case, would definitely drive this court to come to the conclusion that they do not deserve to release on bail. 24. Furthermore the long detention without progress of trial has been previously raised by the petitioners before the Division Bench of this Court and the said ground and considered in detail and the same was dismissed. 25. As far as the petitioner Surla is concerned, Mr.Sankarasubbu, counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that once C.B.I, which has been entrusted with the investigation as per the orders of the Apex Court, filed a referred report in respect of the petitioner Surla, the further deterntion of the petitioner Surla would become illegal and he has to be released forthwith. Though this ground at the first blush looks reasonable a deep delve into the same would make it clear that if is untenable. 26. As indicated earlier this is a case where a lady I.A.S. Officer, while she was on her way to attend her duty at her office, an attempt on her life was made by the petitioners and others by throwing acid in a broad day light. 26. As indicated earlier this is a case where a lady I.A.S. Officer, while she was on her way to attend her duty at her office, an attempt on her life was made by the petitioners and others by throwing acid in a broad day light. The entire investigation is revolved around the questions as to why the victim, being an I.A.S. Officer, working in a State Government Department, has to be brutally attacked by whom, at whose instance, and what was the real motivee So, the victim would be the competent person to speak of the motive and the background of the case. During the course of investigation, being the victim, she has given various details about the motive. She also gave particulars about the persons who had motive against her. Furthermore, her grievance is that the investigation was not properly done by the State Police at the instance of the persons at the political level who had motive against her. Therefore, though charge sheet was filed, the victim in this case, thought it fit, to seek a direction from this court in W.P.No.20186 of 1992 for further investigation by the C.B.I. Though the victim failed in her attempt before this court in the writ petition, she took up the matter before the Apex Court and ultimately she succeeded in obtaining such a direction from the Apex Court after due consideration, making the C.B.I, to take up the investigation and file the final report. 27. As per the Apex Courts order, C.B.I, as referred above, has filed a charge sheet against same persons and filed a referred report against some other persons including the petitioner Surla. Therefore, the learned magistrate on receipt of these reports has to necessarily intimate the victim at those instance investigation is ordered in this case, before passing any order on the reports. In case, the learned Magistrate does not accept the referred report, either he could take cognizance in the referred report himself of he could reject the referred report and direct for further investigation. 28. In this context, it has become necessary for the Magistrate to hear the submissions of the victim, who is a necessary party. After hearing the victim, if referred report is accepted, then alone, the petitioner Surla could be discharged from the case. 28. In this context, it has become necessary for the Magistrate to hear the submissions of the victim, who is a necessary party. After hearing the victim, if referred report is accepted, then alone, the petitioner Surla could be discharged from the case. If the learned Magistrate accepts protest raised by the victim against the accepting of the referred report. That he could commit the petitioner Surla to the Sessions Court if he finds that there are materials for trying him for the offences referred in the police report. In that event, the petitioner Surla has to face the trial along with the other accused and till then he cannot be relieved and released and as such, his detention also would not be construed to be illegal. This is the settled principle of law, over which, there cannot be any quarrel nor any dispute by any of the parties before this Court. In fact, as indicated above, the learned Special Public Prosecutor, only suggested that this Court could issue notice to the victim so that the applications for bail could be disposed of in the proper perspective, on the basis of the above concept of law. 29. Under these circumstances, I feel that till the referred report is accepted by the court in which the report has been filed, the accused cannot claim for the unconditional release on the ground of illegal detention. 30. Yet another issue is raised in this case. This is a case were further investigation is taken up by CBI after the charges having been framed by the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, against the petitioners. Therefore, though the referred report in respect of the petitioner Surla is filed before the Magistrate, it may also be stated that the report and other things have to be necessarily sent to the IV Additional Sessions Judge so that he may come on the conclusion whether the referred report in respect of some accused has to be accepted or not, that too, after hearing the victim in this case. Therefore, till such an order is passed, either by the Magistrate or by the Sessions Judge, in whose court the trial is pending, the petitioner Surla cannot claim release as a matter of right as though he has been completely relieved from the charge of accusation. 31. Therefore, till such an order is passed, either by the Magistrate or by the Sessions Judge, in whose court the trial is pending, the petitioner Surla cannot claim release as a matter of right as though he has been completely relieved from the charge of accusation. 31. In such circumstances, though the learned Special Public Prosecutor, is not able to object to the bill sought by the petitioner Surla, this Court could very well consider the objection, which is sustainable raised by the victim in this case. It is the specific stand taken by the counsel for the victim through the counter affidavit filed by her, that if petitioners are released on bail, her security would certainly be under threat. The counsel further points out that question of further investigation by CBI is also to be decided by this court in the other petition. 32. Therefore, having regard to the bad antecedents of the petitioners, the conduct of the petitioners Pandit Chokka More, Annadurai alias Anna and Sunil Damodhar Pandav in having jumped bail and absconding for long number of months and the conduct of all the petitioners in making an attempt on the life of Judge, who was trying the case in the open court, I am of the considered opinion, that the petitioners, are not entitled to bail since this court endorses the apprehension expressed by the learned Special Public Prosecutor and the victim in this case that the release of the petitioners would definitely jeopardise the interests of the prosecution and result in the petitioners fleeing away from justice. In the light of the above reasonings, the bail petitioners are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly they are dismissed.