JUDGMENT : G. ILANGOVAN, J. Prayer: C-6B. For Bail in Crime No. 147 of 2021 on the file of the Respondent Police. 1. The petitioner, who is arrayed as A1 was arrested, on 18.09.2021 and remanded to judicial custody for the alleged offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 120(B), 109 IPC @ 147, 148, 149, 302, 120(B), 109 IPC and 34 IPC, in Crime No. 147 of 2021, seeks bail. 2. The case of the prosecution, after investigation as found in the final report is that the deceased Ranjith Kumar was a practising Advocate in Uthamapalayam Courts. He entered into a sale agreement, on 14.11.2019 with one Rajagantham in respect of coconut thope. On 16.11.2019, the witness No. 1 was ploughing the field with tractor. At that time, the son of the above said owner Rajagantham, who is A9 herein along with A1, A2 and A8 came there along with 10 persons, caused assault on his brother Ranjithkumar. On the basis of the complaint given by the de-facto complainant, a case in Crime No. 239 of 2019 was registered by the Gudalur South Police. 3. Subsequent to that, in respect of the above said occurrence, enmity existed between two groups. So A1 was approached by A9-Vijayan to do away the deceased and wanted to repossess the property. A conspiracy was hatched in the office of the 8th accused in Gudalur, wherein A1-Jeyaprabhu, A2-Madhan, A3-Selvam, A8-Chokkar and A10-Mayilammal participated. In pursuance of the above said conspiracy, on 06.03.2020, the movement of the deceased was watched. In the place of occurrence, A3, A4, A5, A11 and A12 came in a car and waiting for him. The plan was smelt by the witness Selvendhran. The witness No. 2 was also following the Ranjithkumar in a two wheeler. This was noticed by A7 and informed to A12. At about 3.30 pm, when the deceased was nearing Govindhanpatti Poomalai Theatre, the hired hooligans namely A3, A4, A5, A11 and A12 dashed the car behind back of the bike, which was driven by the deceased. He fell down and tried to escape. But, A4 caused severe injury with aruval, so also A5. A-11 with knife caused severe assault. A12 caused assault with knife. Due to it, the deceased died on the spot. He fell down and tried to escape. But, A4 caused severe injury with aruval, so also A5. A-11 with knife caused severe assault. A12 caused assault with knife. Due to it, the deceased died on the spot. So all the accused persons were charged for the offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 120(B), 109 IPC and 34 IPC, Now, they are facing the charges before the trial court. 4. The matter did not end further. Retaliation was planned and it was also executed on the date of the first death anniversary of the above said Ranjithkumar, over which, another case in Crime No. 733 of 2022 was registered on the file of the respondent police for the offences punishable under sections 279, 324, 306 and 109 IPC. On that ground, against A1 namely Jayaprabhu, the respondent filed modification petition with regard to the condition that was imposed upon him, while he was granted bail, in Crl. O.P. (MD) No. 8931 of 2021. That was also heard by this court and allowed. 5. Seeking bail, this petition came to be filed by the above said 1st accused namely Mayilammal on the ground that absolutely, no material has been collected by the Investigating Agency to show her involvement in the occurrence. Since final report has been filed and taken cognizance by the competent court, it is for the trial court to consider the same. This petitioner is in custody ever-since from the date of arrest, since Act 14 was imposed upon her. The copy of which is also circulated to this court which is dated 25.10.2021. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that HCP filed by the petitioner was allowed by the Bench of this court and the detention was revoked. According to him, since because of the detention, she was not in a position to move the bail application. 7. But perusal of the entire CD file shows a long history. She moved repeated anticipatory bail petitions before this court. At one point of time, SLP came to be dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Suppressing the above said fact, she moved the anticipatory bail before this court in Crl. O.P. (MD) No. 10971 of 2021. That matter was heard for a very long time. She moved repeated anticipatory bail petitions before this court. At one point of time, SLP came to be dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Suppressing the above said fact, she moved the anticipatory bail before this court in Crl. O.P. (MD) No. 10971 of 2021. That matter was heard for a very long time. When serious suppression of the fact was brought to notice of this court, this court dismissed the anticipatory bail petition filed by the petitioner by imposing a cost of Rs. 25,000/-. The respondent police was pulled up for having not any steps to secure the petitioner, in-spite of dismissal of SLP by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In pursuance of the above said strict action, it appears that a special team was formed by the Superintendent of Police and after a long chase from place to place, she was apprehended. The respondent was also present before this court and enquired by me. He has stated that the petitioner changed her stay place, one place to another and after a very long time only, they were able to secure her. 8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the antecedents of the petitioner shows that if she is released on bail, there is every possibility of absconding and tampering the trial process. It is also submitted that the witnesses on the side of the prosecution expressed their fear in attending the court to give evidence. He would also submit the background of the above said issue. The respondent as mentioned earl6ier, has moved modification petition to modify the condition that was imposed upon him stating that life is also in danger at the hands of rival party. 9. Now the question, which arises for consideration is when all other co-accused have been released on bail, whether the bail application, that has been filed by the petitioner can be rejected. 10. No doubt, this petitioner cannot be singled out. But at the same time, her antecedents must also taken into account. The conduct on the part of the petitioner, as mentioned above, shows that she is capable of hiding herself. So if she is released on bail, again she will abscond and tamper the trial process. 11. 10. No doubt, this petitioner cannot be singled out. But at the same time, her antecedents must also taken into account. The conduct on the part of the petitioner, as mentioned above, shows that she is capable of hiding herself. So if she is released on bail, again she will abscond and tamper the trial process. 11. Even though the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the contention on the part of the prosecution that she may abscond and she was absconding from the date of the crime, is not correct on record, since she has filed the anticipatory bail before this court and when that was dismissed, she moved SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. So the story of absconding is not correct. So according to him, since there is no prima-facie material to show involvement of the petitioner, she is entitled for bail. 12. Per contra, it is the contention on the part of the prosecution that the petitioner only financed for the above said gruesome murder and since, she was also intended to purchase the property, as mentioned, according to him, it is a matter for consideration by the trial court. 13. On going through the previous antecedents of the petitioner, a specific question was put to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner to the effect that what is the guarantee that she will not abscond during the process of trial proceedings, since her antecedent does not help her to get the bail. But however, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the prime accused persons are enjoying the bail and they are attending the court. 14. But perusal of the records shows that three witnesses were examined in chief and on the side of the accused did not cross examine. When this was also pointed out to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, he would submit that the petitioner is ready to file an undertaking affidavit to the effect that she will appear before the trial court without fail and also cross examine the witnesses on the date of production. The statement of undertaking given by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is placed on record. 15. The statement of undertaking given by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is placed on record. 15. Since the prime accused are enjoying the bail, it may not be fair on the part of this court to deny the bail to the petitioner by citing her past antecedents. So bail can be granted to the petitioner on the ground that she has to file an undertaking affidavit before the trial court stating that she will regularly attend court and cooperate with the court for the completion of the trial process. If any violation in the affidavit is noticed, the trial court is at liberty to take the petitioner into the custody till the completion of the trial process. 16. With the above said condition and undertaking, this court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with certain conditions. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on her executing a bond for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayam, Theni District and on further condition that the petitioner shall report before the concerned trial court daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders.