Dhakshanamoorthi v. State Rep By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Sixth day of July Two Thousand Twenty Two PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.15245 of 2022 1 DHAKSHANAMOORTHI [ PETITIONERS / ACCUSED ] 2 ARULKUMAR 3 VEDI @ UTHIRAVEDI 4 THUKKAN Vs STATE REP BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRUPATHUR TALUK POLICE STATION, THIRUPATTUR,THIRUPATTUR DISTRICT.

(CRIME NO.221/2022) For Petitioner : M/S R.MURUGA BHARATHI Advocate For Respondent : MR.A.DAMODARAN, Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(ii) of IPC, in Crime No.221 of 2022, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that due to family dispute between the petitioners and the defacto complainant, wordy quarrel arose between them, due to this, the petitioners abused defacto complainant's brother with filthy language and also attacked him with hand and iron rod, thereby he has sustained grievous injuries and was admitted in the hospital. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and due to family dispute between them, a false case has been foisted against them. Hence, he prays for grant of Anticipatory Bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the deceased brother got married with one Malarkodi who was the daughter of the third petitioner herein. Due to this, the first and second accused went to the defacto complainant's house and attacked defacto complainant's brother and sustained severe injury on the back side of his head immediately he was hospitalized and after two days, he was died. Later it was altered into Section 302 of IPC. Therefore, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners are very much necessary, this Court is not inclined to grant Anticipatory Bail to the petitioners.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. -sd/- 06/07/2022 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, THIRUPATHUR TALUK POLICE STATION, THIRUPATTUR,THIRUPATTUR DISTRICT.

2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

CC to M/S R.MURUGA BHARATHI Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.15245/2022 Date :06/07/2022 CSK 18/07/2022