Srinivasan v. The State Rep By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 21.09.2020

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA Crl.O.P.No.14651 of 2020

1. Srinivasan S/o. Chokkalingam

2. Raja S/o. Panjamoorthy

3. Tamilselvi W/o. Panjamoorthy

4. Jaya D/o. Chokkalingam ... Petitioners vs.

State rep. By The Inspector of Police, Manalmedu Police Station, Nagapattinam District.

Crime No.998/2020.

...Respondent

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. to grant Anticipatory bail to the petitioners in the event of their arrest in Crime No.998 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioners : Mr.V.Sakkarapani For Respondent : Mr. M. Mohamed Riyaz, Additional Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

(The case has been heard through video conference) The petitioners who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences publishable under Sections 294 (b), 341, 352, 324, 506 (2) & 307 of IPC in Crime No.998 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution, as per the defacto complainant Jayakumar, is that one Ramadoss had given a sum of Rs.60,000/- along with 2 1⁄2 Sovereigns gold to the petitioner. The said Ramadoss along with the de facto complainant's son went to first petitioner's house and demanded return of money. At that time, there was a wordy quarrel between them and the petitioners assaulted the defacto complainant with a wooden log, as a result of which, he sustained injuries. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that the defacto complainant came to the place of the petitioner and the petitioner picked up a quarrel. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that due to money dispute, the petitioners assaulted the defacto complainant and his friend one Ramadoss as a result of which, they sustained injuries. He would further submit that the victim is still in hospital at Thanjavoor taking treatment. He would further submit that the first petitioner has one previous case in Cr.No.139 of 2018. Hence, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. Taking into consideration the facts and submissions of the learned Counsel and also the fact that victim is still in hospital , this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed for the present.

-sd/- 21/09/2020 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.I, MAYILADUTHURAI 2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANALMEDU POLICE STATION, NAGAPATTINAM DISTRICT.

CC to M/S V.SAKKARAPANI Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.14651/2020 Date :21/09/2020 RD 28/09/2020 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/