Ravi@Ravichandran v. State Rep By,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 05.10.2020 CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA Crl.O.P.No.15632 of 2020 Ravi @ Ravichandran
...Petitioner
-VsState rep. by ... Respondent The Inspector of Police, M-4, Red Hills Police Station, Chennai-600 052.
(Crime No.136 of 2020).
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C., praying to grant an anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.136 of 2020 on the file of the respondent.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Murugesan For Respondent : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz, Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(The case has been heard through video conference) The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 294(b), 324, 385 and 506(ii) IPC, in Crime No.136 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that due to previous enmity, on 21.03.2020, the petitioner along with some other accused has abused the defacto complainant viz. Arunraj in filthy language and also assaulted him with hands. Hence the compliant. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he is no way connected with the said occurrence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that due to previous enmity, the defacto complainant has foisted a false complaint against the petitioner. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready to co-operate with the investigation and ready to abide by the conditions that may be imposed by this Court. He would further submit that this is the
second anticipatory bail petition and the earlier petition was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 31.07.2020 in Crl.O.P.No.11303 of 2020. Hence, he seeks anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would vehemently oppose stating that due to money dispute, there was a quarrel between the petitioner and the defacto complainant due to which, the petitioner along with others, abused and attacked the defacto complainant. He would further submit that the petitioner is a history sheeter and he has also so far involved in 6 previous cases including one murder case. Further the defacto complainant was doing Real Estate Business, in which, the petitioner demanded a plot from the defacto complainant and when the said request was refused. the petitioner along with other accused persons attacked the defacto complainant, causing injuries and thereafter the injured was discharged from the hospital. Hence, he vehemently opposed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5.It is seen that the petitioner is a history sheeter and that he has bad antecedents. The petitioner has so far involved in 6 previous cases, out of which, one under Section 302 IPC. Though the defacto complainant was discharged from the hospital, the petitioner attacked the victim by demanding house plots from him.
6. Taking into consideration of the fact that the earlier applications filed by the petitioner were dismissed by this Court and that the petitioner has got one previous case for the offence under Section 302 IPC and that this Court had very recently dismissed the earlier anticipatory bail application in Crl.O.P.No.10112 of 2020 dated 03.07.2020 and also considering the bad antecedents of the petitioner and there is no change in circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.
-sd/- 05/10/2020 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, M-4,RED HILLS POLICE STATION, CHENNAI-52.
2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.
CC to M/S.N.MURUGESAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.15632/2020 Date :05/10/2020 TA-15/10/2020