Krishnan v. State Rep. By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 26.05.2021

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI Crl.O.P.No.9540 of 2021

1. Krishnan, S/o.Iyappan

2. Selvam, S/o.Arumugam both residing at Ambedkar Colony, Seerapalli, Rasipuram, Namakkal District.

... Petitioners Vs.

State Represented by The Inspector of Police, Namagiripet Police Station, Namakkal District.

Cr.No.284 of 2021.

... Respondent Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.284 of 2021 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioners : Mr.W.Camyles Gandhi For Respondent : Mr.A.Damodaran Government Advocate (Crl. side)

O R D E R

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 294 (b), 323, 324, 307 and 506 (ii) of IPC and Section 11 read with 12 of POCSO Act of in Crime No.284 of 2021, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the first petitioner is alleged to have waylaid the defacto complainant's daughter and proposed his love and she inturn informed the same to the defacto complainant sent his daughter to his relative's house. The further case of the prosecution is that the petitioners along with his relatives went to the house of the defacto complainant and attacked the defacto complainant with reaper sticks and stones and caused injuries. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and the defacto complainant has lodged a false complaint against them. Therefore, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) would submit that the first petitioner propose love affair to the daughter of the defacto complainant and as the defacto complainant sent his daughter to his relative's house, the petitioners along with his relatives went to the house of the defacto complainant and attacked him and hence he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. Considering the above fact and circumstances of the case and the nature of allegations against the petitioners, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 26.05.2021 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking/Non-Speaking order ub

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

ub To

1. The Judicial Magistrate, Rasipuram.

2. The Inspector of Police, Namagiripet Police Station, Namakkal District.

3. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.

Crl.O.P.No.9540 of 2021 26.05.2021