Viji @ Vijayan v. The State Of Tamilnadu Rep.By
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 30.07.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA Crl.OP.No.11387 of 2020
1. Viji @ Vijayan
2. Pugalenthi @ Manoj Petitioners/Accused No.2 & 4 -VsThe state of Tamil Nadu rep.by Inspector of Police, Vedaranyam Police station, Nagapattinam District.
Cr.No.990 of 2020 Respondent/Complainant Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.990 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioners : M/s.S.N.Subramani For Respondent : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz Additional Public Prosecutor
O R D E R
(This case has been heard through video conference) The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences publishable under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 324 , 506(ii)and 307 of IPC in Cr. No.990 of 2020, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that when the defacto complainant questioning the immoral act of the petitioner and others, who were taken liquor near the Perumal koil, the petitioner and other two accused attacked the defacto complainant Rajasekar with knife and wooden log and caused injury to him. Hence, the complaint.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that factualy, there was a wordy quarrel between the petitioners and the accused with respect to civil dispute and that the petitioners were not involved in any offence as alleged and that the defacto complainant attacked the petitioners and to take revenge on the petitioners, a false case has been foisted against them. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the accused were consuming liquor near the temple and when the defacto complainant questioned the same, there was a wordy quarrel between the petitioners and the defacto complainant and the petitioners used aruval and caused injury on the head of the defacto complainant. He further submitted that the injured is still in the hospital and there are no previous cases pending against the petitioners. Hence, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
5. Taking into consideration the facts and submissions of the learned Counsel and the fact that the injured is still in the hospital, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
6.This Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. -sd/- 30/07/2020 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 INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VEDARANYAM POLICE STATION, NAGAPATTINAM DISTRICT.
2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.
CC to M/S.S.N.SUBRAMANI Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.11387/2020 Date :30/07/2020 cs 28/08/2020 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/