Appavoo @ Swamy v. State Rep. By Inspector

Crl.O.P.No.1278 of 2016 K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J.

The petitioner, who is arrayed as A10, apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302, 120(B), 506(ii) r/w 149 IPC, in Crime No.371 of 2013 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the deceased is a black Magician by profession. The accused are residing in the same area. The family of the accused suffered due to ill-health and they thought that the deceased was responsible for their sufferings. So, A1 to A10 have conspired together on 02.04.2013 to eliminate the deceased. Pursuant to the conspiracy, that on 25.04.2013 at 7.15 a.m., the accused 1 to 9 way laid the deceased and the accused 1 to 6 attacked him while A7 to A9 stood as guard. The deceased succumbed to the injuries.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and is a law abiding citizen. He further submitted that the occurrence had taken place on 25.04.2013 and the respondent police registered a case against A1 to A5 and after completing the investigation, laid the charge sheet against them and thereafter, in a re-investigation, the respondent police has implicated the accused 6 to 10 as conspirators in the crime. He further submitted that the respondent has completed the investigation and also, filed the

charge sheet, which is taken on file in P.R.C.No.107 of 2013 showing the petitioner as an absconding accused and the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate issued a Non-Bailable Warrant on 02.02.2015 and therefore, the petitioner has filled the present petition seeking anticipatory bail.

4.

The learned Government Advocate [criminal side] appearing for the respondent would submit that this is the fourth application. The earlier applications of this petitioner were dismissed on 27.04.2015, 24.06.2015 and 07.12.2015 respectively. He further submitted that earlier, the respondent registered a case only against the accused 1 to 5, however, a re-investigation was conducted, pursuant to the order of the learned XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore and subsequent investigation revealed that the petitioner is one of the conspirators and therefore, the earlier applications were dismissed and there is no change of circumstances to consider the application now.

5. It is not in dispute that a Non-Bailable Warrant was issued against the petitioner on 02.02.2015. Subsequently the earlier anticipatory bail petitions of this petitioner were dismissed in the month of April, 2015, June, 2015, and December 2015.

Considering the allegations made against the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for anticipatory bail. Hence, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 29.02.2016 sms

K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J.

sms Crl.O.P.No.1278 of 2016 29.02.2016