Janakiraman v. State Rep By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Seventeenth day of March Two Thousand Twenty Two PRESENT The Hon`ble Dr Justice G. JAYACHANDRAN CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.6234 of 2022 1 JANAKIRAMAN [ PETITIONERS / ACCUSED ] 2 J.MAHALAKSHMI 3 VIJAYA 4 MARIYA BACKIAM 5 JEBAMANI SELVAKUMAR 6 ASIRVATHAM 7 G.MANIMALA Vs STATE REP BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, M-3, PUZHAL POLICE STATION, CHENNAI.

(IN CRIME NO.382 OF 2022) For Petitioner : M/S.N.D.RAVIANANTH Advocate For Respondent : MR.S.SANTHOSH, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for offence under section 427, 448, 294(b), 323, 324, 147, 148, 506(ii) IPC in Crime Number.382 of 2022, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. Heard the Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side).

3. The Counsel for the petitioners, relying upon the delay in filing the FIR, would submit that the case and counter wherein due to the land dispute. There was a fight in between the defacto complainant family members and the petitioners family members which ended up in murder of one Baradharaman.

4. The murder case has been registered in FIR No. 372 of 2022 dated 02.02.2022. These petitioners, who belongs to the group of Baradharaman has filed a complaint before the respondent police. One Selvaraj has filed a complaint before the respondent police on 10.02.2022 and the same was registered in Crime No. 382 of 2022 alleging that, in the Course of the incident which took place on 01.02.2022, he and his family members had sustained injuries.

5. On perusal of the FIR, it appears that the petitioners herein has gone to the house of the defacto complainant and attacked them, due to which, one of the their members sustained fatal injuries, but at the same time, this petitioners have attacked the defacto complainant's family members causing grievous injuries and furthermore, when they were taking treatment in the hospital, the petitioners gone to the hospital with rowdy elements and threatened them to leave the hospital, fearing the threat of life the defacto complainant and other injured persons have left the hospital and filed the complaint after the delay of 8 days, the delay is explained therefore, there is no reason to entertain this Anticipatory bail petition.

6. Considering the above facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant Anticipatory bail to the petitioners. -sd/- 17/03/2022 This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned TRUE COPY Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104.

TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, M-3, PUZHAL POLICE STATION, CHENNAI.

2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

CC to M/S.N.D.RAVIANANTH Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.6234/2022 Date :17/03/2022 CSK 25/03/2022