Balaji v. State Rep By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 03.07.2020

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G. K. ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.O.P.No.10112 of 2020 Balaji ... Petitioner/A1 Vs.

State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Redhills Police Station, Thiruvallur District.

Crime No.136 of 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.136 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner : Mr. R. Sasikumar 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 448, 294(b), 324, 385 and 506(ii) of IPC in Crime No.136 of 2020, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that due to previous enmity, on 21.03.2020, the petitioner along with some others, have abused the defacto complainant namely Arunraj with filthy language and also assaulted him with hands. Hence the compliant.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has no way connected with the occurrence took place as alleged by the prosecution. Due to previous enmity, the defacto complainant has foisted a false complaint against the petitioner. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready to co-operate with the investigation and ready to abide by the conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he seeks anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that due to money dispute, there was a quarrel between the petitioner and the defacto complainant due to which, the petitioner along with others, abused and attacked the defacto complainant. He would further submit that the petitioner is a history sheeter and also he has involved so far 6 previous cases including one murder case. Further the defacto complainant was doing Real Estate Business in which the petitioner demanded a plot from the defacto complainant and the same was refused to fulfill the request of the petitioner and that the defacto complainant was attacked by the accused persons and thereafter injured discharge from the hospital. Hence, he vehemently opposed for the grant of bail to the petitioner.

5. It is seen that the petitioner is a history sheeter and that he has bad antecedents and so far involving in 6 previous cases to his credit out of which, one under Section 302 IPC. Though the defacto complainant was discharge from the hospital that the petitioner attacked the deceased by demanding house plots from the defacto complainant.

6. Taking into account, the nature of offence and the bad antecedents of the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the Criminal Original petition stands dismissed.

-sd/- 03/07/2020 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 JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.II, PONNERI.

2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, REDHILLS POLICE STATION, THIRUVALLUR DISTRICT.

CC to M/S. R.SASIKUMAR Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.10112/2020 Date :03/07/2020 MK:17/08/2020