Y.P. John David Paul v. State Rep.By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 09.10.2020

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA Crl.O.P.No.16036 of 2020 Y P John David Paul ... Petitioner Vs.

State Represented by :- The Inspector of Police, Thiruninravur Police Station, 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 their arrest concerned in event of their arrest, concerned in Crime No.640 of 2020, pending on the file of the Respondent police. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Thirukumaran For Respondent : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz, Additional Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

(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 Thiruninravur police station, seek 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 Sakthivel 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. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent persons and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the injured has been discharged from the hospital. Hence, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent submitted that petitioner is the notorious offender against whom four previous cases of similar nature are pending. He further submitted that one Sakthivel husband of A1 viz., Bhavani had borrowed the money from the defacto complainant and he had repaid part amount. Thereafter, the said Sakthivel died, due to which, the defacto complainant approached the wife of the Sakthivel and asked her to return the balance amount. Thereby the wife of the said Sakthivel along with petitioner and one Ajit threatened the defacto complainant and attacked him with aruval and caused injuries. The defacto complainant had suffered 18 sutures. Hence, he opposed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 5.Considering the nature of offence and bad antecedents of the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

-sd/- 09/10/2020 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 JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, NO.II, THIRUVALLUR.

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE THIRUVALLUR [FOR INFORMATION] 3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLILCE, THIRUNINRAVUR POLICE STATION.

CC to M/S. S.THIRUKKUMARAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.16036/2020 Date :09/10/2020 cs 19/10/2020 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/