G.K.Babu v. The Inspector Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Saturday, the Seventeenth day of April Two Thousand Twenty One PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice M.DHANDAPANI CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.6881 of 2021 G.K.BABU [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ] Vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE [ RESPONDENT ] K2 AYYANAVARAM POLICE STATION, CHENNAI.
For Petitioner : M/S.M.RAVINDHAR Advocate For Respondent : M/S.T.SHUNMUGARAJESWARAN Government Advocate (Crl.Side) 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 punishable under Section 326 IPC, in Crime No.197 of 2021, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is a building Contractor and the petitioner is working as Assistant Executive Engineer at Zone 6 of the Greater Chennai Corporation. The defacto complainant renovates the Corporation Building in Perambur on contractual basis and after completion of work the Assistant Executive Engineer used to release payments on the basis of work. Whileso, for the past two months, the amount was not paid to the defacto complainant and when he asked for payment, the petitioner/Assistant Executive Engineer has demanded a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as bribe and when it was questioned by the defacto complainant, the petitioner has abused and attacked the defacto complainant with wooden chair and hands and thereby, the defacto complainant sustained injuries in his mouth. Hence, the complaint was registered.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. In fact, the defacto complainant had entered into the office premises of the petitioner and attacked the petitioner and thereby, the petitioner had lodged a complaint and the same has been registered in FIR No.1269 of 2020 following which, the defacto complainant was arrested and later he was enlarged on bail and now a false complaint has been made against the petitioner in order to wreck vengeance. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that the petitioner is a public servant, working as an Assistant Executive Engineer in Chennai Corporation. The defacto complainant is a Contractor, doing contract work in the Corporation Building at Perambur. On 30.12.2020 at about 7 p.m., when the defacto complainant had asked the petitioner to release the payment towards the work done by him, the petitioner demanded a sum of Rs. Rs.1,50,000/- as bribe from the defacto complainant / building contractor and when the same was questioned by the defacto complainant, the petitioner abused and attacked the defacto complainant with wooden chairs and thereby, the defacto complainant sustained injuries. Hence, he oppose for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5.It is seen that the petitioner is working as Assistant Executive Engineer in Chennai Corporation. The petitioner being a public servant has allegedly demanded bribe amount from the defacto complainant. Considering the nature of offence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
6.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. -sd/- 17/04/2021 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, K2 AYYANAVARAM POLICE STATION, CHENNAI.
2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.
+1 CC to M/S.M.RAVINDHAR Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.NO. 5125 CRL OP.6881/2021 Date :17/04/2021 MN-11/05/2021