Ravi v. State Rep By
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Nineteenth day of May Two Thousand Twenty Two PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.11418 of 2022 1 RAVI [ PETITIONERS / ACCUSED ] 2 K.PRABHU Vs STATE REP BY [ RESPONDENT ] SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHITHAMUR POLICE STATION, CHENGALPET DISTRICT CRIME NO.61 OF 2022 For Petitioner : M/S.V.SAROJINI Advocate For Respondent : M/S.A.DAMODARAN, Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners, apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offence punishable under Section 306 of I.P.C, in Crime No.61 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.
2. Heard both sides.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on 08.03.2021, the de facto complainant's uncle namely, Pakkiri died, on the said death ceremony, there was altercation between the brother of the de facto complainant and one Ellappan and the said Ellappan died on the same day i.e., on 08.03.2021. Thereafter, it was unanimously decided by the Panchayatars of Bhaira Community that the de facto complainant's family has to pay a compensation of Rs.30 Lakhs to the deceased family. However, the de facto complainant's family failed to arrange https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
the compensation and hence, the Panchayatars decided to ostracized the de facto complainant's family from their community, aggrieved over the same, the father of the de facto complainant committed suicide by hanging himself. Hence, the complaint.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are only the attendees in the said Panchayat and they have been falsely implicated in this case and they have nothing to do with the alleged offence.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that on the death of one Ellappan, the Panchayatars demanded Rs.30 Lakhs from the de facto complainant's family as compensation payable to the family members of the deceased Ellappan and accordingly, the said Ellappan's family received a sum of Rs.30 Lakhs as compensation and again, they demanded a sum of Rs.30 Lakhs and threatened the de facto complainant with dire consequences.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that the custodial interrogation is very much required in this case, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
7. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. -sd/- 19/05/2022 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, CHITHAMUR POLICE STATION, CHENGALPET DISTRICT .
2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.
CC to M/S.V.SAROJINI Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.11418/2022 Date :19/05/2022 RW-26/05/2022 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/