Satheesh @ Vaanjinathan v. The State, Represented By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 14.09.2020 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA Crl.O.P.No.14209 of 2020 Satheesh @ Vaanjinathan ... Petitioner Vs.

The State, represented by Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri Taluk Police Station, Krishnagiri District.

(Crime No.665 of 2020) ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Crime No.665 of 2020 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sankarasubbu For Respondent : Mr.T.Shunmugarajeswaran Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

O R D E R

(The case has been heard through video conference) The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 04.08.2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 120B, 109 and 34 of IPC, in Crime No.665 of 2020, on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2.The case of the prosecution as per the defacto complainant Vikram who is the friend of the deceased Pown Raj is that on 02.08.2020, due to previous enmity, the petitioner along with other accused murdered the deceased Pown Raj. Hence, the complain.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Even as per the prosecution, the deceased is said to have outraged the modesty of the mother of one Tendulkar, who is arrayed as A2 in this case and the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He would submit that the petitioner has been suffering incarceration from 04.08.2020. Hence, he prays for grant of bail. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police would vehemently oppose stating that the petitioner along with other accused committed murder of one Pown Raj. He would further submit that two Advocates are eyewitness to the said incident and they have given their statement before the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. He would further submit that the petitioner is a History Sheeted rowdy in H.S.No.10 of 2019 and there are two previous cases pending against him and that the investigation is at the crucial stage.

5. Taking in to consideration the nature of offence and the fact that the petitioner is a history sheeter rowdy and that he has been arrested very recently on 04.08.2020 and that the investigation is at the crucial stage, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed for the present. -sd/- 14/09/2020 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 SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, SALEM.

2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KRISHNAGIRI TALUK POLICE STATION, KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT.

CC to M/S. R.SANKARASUBBU Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.14209/2020 Date :14/09/2020 MK:28/09/2020 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/