Madras High CourtCRL OP/13685/2020dismissed

Unni @ Mathusuthan v. State Rep.By

2020-09-04Honourable Mr Justice A.D.Jagadish Chandira2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED :04.09.2020

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA Crl.O.P.No.13685 of 2020 Unni @ Mathusuthan ... Petitioner Vs.

The State Represented by, The Inspector of Police, Peelamedu Police Station, Coimbatore.

(Cr.No.1680 of 2020) ... Respondent Prayer:

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Connection with the Crime No.1680 of 2020 pending on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner : Mr.B. Muneeswaran For Respondent : Mr. M. Mohamed Riyaz, Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

(This case has been heard through video conference) The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 75(1)(C) of TNCP Act and Section 323, 506(ii) of I.P.C. in Crime No.1680 of 2020, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution as per the defacto complainant is that the petitioner had consumed Ganja near to the defacto complainant's house and when that was questioned by the defacto complainant, the petitioner had assaulted the defacto complainant and also threatened him with dire consequences and thereby the defacto complainant sustained injuries in his chest. Hence, the complaint.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case and that he is no way connected in this case. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner is a notorious offender of consumed Ganja and he had consumed Ganja near to the defacto complainant's house and that was questioned by the defacto complainant, the petitioner had assaulted the defacto complainant with knife. He would further submit that there are eight previous case as against the petitioner. However, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Taking into consideration the facts and submissions of the learned Counsel and the fact that the petitioner has eight previous case, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6.With the above observation, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

-sd/- 04/09/2020 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 JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.II, COIMBATORE.

2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PEELAMEDU POLICE STATION, COIMBATORE.

CC to M/S.B.MUNEESWARAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.13685/2020 Date :04/09/2020 MK:22/09/2020 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/