Kalidoss v. State Rep. By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the First day of March Two Thousand Twenty One PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice V. BHARATHIDASAN CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.6865 of 2020 P. KALIDOSS [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED-1 ] Vs STATE REP. BY [ RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, J-09, THURAIPAKKAM POLICE STATION, CHENNAI-600097 (CRIME NO. 05/2020) For Petitioner : M/S. T.DIVYA Advocate For Respondent : M/S. S.KARTHIKEYAN, Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent Police for the alleged offences under Sections 363, 341, 342, 323 and 506(2) IPC in Crime No.5 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 05.01.2020, the petitioner and A2 had voluntarily taken the defacto complainant to the house of one Murali and attacked him. Due to which, the defacto complainant sustained bone fracture. Hence, the complaint. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he is no way connected with the alleged offence. He would further submit that a false case has been foisted against the petitioner. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the defacto complainant had suffered bone fracture. He would also submit that the injured has been discharged from the hospital. Further, the investigation is not yet completed and if the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, there is a possibility that he will tamper the witnesses and hamper the investigation. Hence, he https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 5.Taking into consideration the allegations and also the bad antecedence of the petitioner and the fact that the case is at the stage of the investigation and also taking note of the serious nature of offence committed by the petitioner and that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is essential, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 6.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

-sd/- 01/03/2021 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, J-09, THURAIPAKKAM POLICE STATION, CHENNAI-600 097.

2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

CC to M/S. T.DIVYA Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.6865/2020 Date :01/03/2021 MN-10/03/2021 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/