Devan v. State Rep. By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 29.06.2020

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN CRL.O.P.No. 9699 of 2020 Devan ... Petitioner Vs.

The State rep by Sub-Inspector of Police, Kannankurichi Police Station, Salem City.

(Crime No.472/2020) ... Respondent Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.472 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner : Ms.Rajeswari Karthikeyan For Respondent : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz, Additional Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

The petitioner who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341, 294 (b), 342, 506 (ii) of IPC in Crime No.472 of 2020, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant was working as a coolie in the construction field. On 07.05.2020, when the defacto complainant and his brother along with his friends were consuming liquor near Athukkadu E.B. Office, at about 02.00 p.m., the accused persons have unwantedly went there and quarrelled with them. When the defacto complainant proceeding to go home, near speed breaker, he was intercepted by unknown persons in a two wheeler wearing helmets, and threatened to kill him and they have kidnapped the defacto complainant for ransom, and thereafter, they have also snatched his cell phone. Hence, the present complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in so far as the petitioner is concerned, he has nothing to do with the accused persons, and he was no way connected with the occurrence. He would further submit that on investigation, the accused persons A2 to A4 were already arrested and thereafter released on bail. Hence, he seeks anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that all the accused persons A1 to A4 have kidnapped the defacto complainant for ransom and also threatened him with dire consequences. Fortunately, the defacto complainant escaped from the scene of occurrence and lodged a complaint and as such, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. It is seen that there are four accused and all the accused persons have kidnapped the defacto complainant for ransom. Fortunately, the defacto complainant escaped from the scene of occurrence and lodged the complaint. The accused persons A2 to A4 were arrested and released on bail, thereby, they have committed serious offence. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner and hence, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.

-sd/- 29/06/2020 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 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KANNANKURICHI POLICE STATION, SALEM CITY.

2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

CC to M/S. RAJESWARI KARTHIKEYAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.9699/2020 Date :29/06/2020 cs 03/08/2020 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/