Judgment : 1. Petition for bail. 2. Offence under Section 302 of I.P.C.3. Heard both sides. 4. It is a pathetic case. But, sympathy is different. Law is different. They are not interchangeable. Morality is different from law. Law and morality are not synonmys. What is immoral may be legal. Sometimes, what is moral may be illegal. A father abusing his daughter in filthy language is immoral. But, a son beating such a father may be moral, but, it is illegal. In case of criminality, morality pale into insignificance. There cannot be justification for committing a crime/killing. 5. A crime is different from a civil wrong. What is in the mind of the accused is important. But, at times, the circumstances, under which the accused committed the offence becomes equally important. 6. If at the time of committing the crime, the accused is not the master of his mind, in other words, his mind is not under his control, we must mind his(such a) mind. We must mind what had motivated (made him) to commit the crime. It may offer him some mitigating factors. But, that will not justify a criminal act or killing etc, nor absolve him from criminal liability. It would be a ground to consider whether under any provocative circumstances, the accused has committed the offence. In other words, whether at the time of committing the crime, the accused 'is not the master of his mind'. 7. A son killing his father is 'patricide', while a son killing his mother is 'matricide'. Killer son is a cruel son. Anything can be exchanged/compensated. But, not the loss of a father or mother. 8. In a Division Bench, sitting along with my respected brother Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR, I had occasion to consider the case of a killer son and a killer mother. A son has killed his mother for not giving him food in time. We considered him a worst (son) criminal and approved his life sentence (see ARUMUGAM VS. STATE. 8. In a Division Bench, sitting along with my respected brother Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR, I had occasion to consider the case of a killer son and a killer mother. A son has killed his mother for not giving him food in time. We considered him a worst (son) criminal and approved his life sentence (see ARUMUGAM VS. STATE. In another case, a mother killed her only son since he favoured his wife, when at a time his mother was in complete distress, she has lost everything in life except her only son, the mother was prepared to leave everything in life except her beloved son, she wanted to leave this world along with her son, she killed her son and also attempted suicide but, survived only to become a lifer. We set aside her life sentence and converted it to till the period undergone and set her at liberty. [see POOVAMMAL VS. STATE(2012 (2)MLJ(Crl) 482]. 9. In one case son killed mother. In another case, mother killed son. Very same criminal law. Very same Section 302 of IPC. Very same judges. But, they were different to different situation because of the factual matrix and law. Law is bound to be different to different situations and circumstances. Law cannot be blind. 10. With this background of law, let us approach the case at out hand. 11. Petitioner had recently crossed his 18 years of age. He is a modern youth. At this age, they think that they can conquer the whole world. It seems that he is having an incorrigible father, namely, Selvaraj. On 23.6.2014, at about 3 p.m., Selvaraj came to the house fully drunk, abused his unmarried daughter aged about 16 years, in a foul language. It was in bad taste. It was quite indigestible to the young man/petitioner. He scolded his father. But, sanity and decency fade away from Selvaraj. Actually, he became insane, insensitive to his daughter. Under such circumstances, suddenly petitioner ran to the kitchen and picked up a stick, assaulted his father on his head, his father fell down. Petitioner felt very much and left the place. 12. Later, at about 11 pm, when the petitioner returned home, he heard the feeble sound of his father. Petitioner phoned 108 Ambulance. His father was taken to the hospital. He was given first aid. After some time, Selvaraj's feeble sound also died down. 13. Petitioner felt very much and left the place. 12. Later, at about 11 pm, when the petitioner returned home, he heard the feeble sound of his father. Petitioner phoned 108 Ambulance. His father was taken to the hospital. He was given first aid. After some time, Selvaraj's feeble sound also died down. 13. Petitioner realised his folly. The entire family crestfallen. Petitioner surrendered himself before the V.A.O and recounted him what had happened. He reduced them into writing and handed over him with his report to police. (Extra-Judicial Confession- see Section 24 Evidence Act). It is to be noted that at the time of committing (beating his father) the offence, petitioner was not “master of his mind”. His mind was not under his control. He could not control his anger, passion. His mind 'had gone astray'. Actually, he did not wish to finish his father. 14. Everything happened suddenly in a spur of moment. At the time of committing the offence, he was not possessing any weapon, much less a lethal weapon. He acted in a heat of passion. Because of the act of his father towards his (petitioner) sister, petitioner's blood went boiling. He suddenly picked up a stick lying near the kitchen. He did not act in a cruel or unusual manner (see Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC). He acted under a grave and sudden provocation. Grave because his father scolded his young sister in a most demeaning language. All the feelings of the petitioner, who is just 18 years old arouse. He could not control his emotions, feelings, anger and passion. 15. He had beaten his father. His father's life was cut short. As I stated already, law and moral is different. The son may be moral in beating such a father but it is not lawful to do so. He caused the death of a person. Prima facie, it will come under Section 299 of IPC. Either, under Section 302 or 304 (i) or (ii) I.P.C. All depends on the evidence collected. It is for the trial Judge to appreciate and catalogue the case. Now, for the limited purpose of deciding the bail petition, the circumstances, under which the offence was committed becomes most relevant to arrive at a prima facie case. Further, after committing the crime, petitioner did not run away. It is for the trial Judge to appreciate and catalogue the case. Now, for the limited purpose of deciding the bail petition, the circumstances, under which the offence was committed becomes most relevant to arrive at a prima facie case. Further, after committing the crime, petitioner did not run away. He arranged for an Ambulance to take away his injured father to the hospital. He was very sad. He was remorseful. He had surrendered before V.A.O. It shows absence of attitude of abscondance in him. Further, he is very young. He has mother and sister. So, he has strong roots in society. It is quite unlikely that he will elude. 16. Considering all the above aspects, I am inclined to grant him bail. 17. Ordered as under: (i) Bail granted. (ii) Two sureties, one shall be his mother and they shall execute a bond for Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) and the petitioner also for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Poonamalle (iii) Petitioner shall appear before the respondent police on every Monday and Friday at 10.30 am, for two weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation;