Y.John David Paul v. State Rep By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED 30.07.2021

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA CRL.O.P.No.13191 of 2021 Y.John David Paul, ... Petitioner Vs.

State Represented by :- The Inspector of Police, T-11, Thiruninravur Police Station, Chennai Cr. No.640 of 2020 ... Respondent Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioner on Anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest, concerned in Crime No.640 of 2020, pending on the file of the Respondent police.

For Petitioner : Mr.E.Soundar Rajan For Respondent : Mr.V.J.Priyadarsana Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

(The 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 294(b), 324, 307 and 506(2) of IPC in Crime No.640 of 2020, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution as per the defacto complainant Pushparaj is that he is a painter and his wife is engaged in selling fruits in a push cart. While so, one Sakthivel had borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from the defacto complainant and he had repaid the amount of Rs.1,19,000/- and he died without repaying the balance amount of Rs.81,000/-. Therefore, the defacto complainant has asked the balance amount from the wife of the said Sakthivel. Following which, the wife of the deceased along with other accused have called the defacto complainant over phone and threatened him not to ask for the balance amount. Thereafter, on the date of occurrence, the accused had called the defacto complainant and informed him to come

and collect the money. When the defacto complainant had gone to collect the money, the accused had assaulted him with knife and caused injuries. Hence the complaint.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that this is the 6th application for anticipatory bail and the earlier applications for anticipatory bail was dismissed by this Court on the ground that the petitioner has got 4 previous cases of similar nature. He would submit that the petitioner is an innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that this the 6th application for anticipatory bail and this Court taking into consideration the antecedents of the petitioner and also taking note of the fact that the petitioner is a history sheeter, had dismissed the earlier applications and he would submit that the investigation is still pending. Hence, he vehemently opposed for grant of anticipatory bail.

5.Considering the nature of offence and the antecedents of the petitioner and the fact that the investigation is still pending and that there is no change in circumstances after the dismissal of the earlier application, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. -sd/- 30/07/2021 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, T-11, THIRUNINRAVUR POLICE STATION, CHENNAI

2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

CC to M/S. E.SOUNDAR RAJAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.13191/2021 Date :30/07/2021 APN 26/08/2021