Ramalingam v. State Rep By,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 16.10.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA Crl.O.P.No.16581 of 2020
1. Ramalingam
2. Annamalai
3. Saminathan
4. Govindaraj ... Petitioners Vs.
The State Represented by, The Inspector of Police, Jamunamarathur Police Station, Thiruvannamalai District.
(Cr.No.527 of 2020) ... Respondent Prayer:
Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Connection with the Crime No.527 of 2020 pending on the file of the respondent police.
For Petitioners : Mr.G.Vinodh Kumar For Respondent : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz, Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(This case has been heard through video conference) The petitioners who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 448, 294 (b), 506 (ii), 379 of IPC r/w. Section 3 of TNPP (D&R) Act, in Crime No.527 of 2020, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that one Rajendran was murdered and in retaliation, the petitioners along with other accused had entered into the house of the de-facto complainant and ransacked the entire house. 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 they have https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioners are relatives. Due to property dispute, one Rajendran was murdered by one Annamalai and hence, the petitioners and other accused trespassed into the house of the de-facto complainant's father and ransacked the entire house. He would further submit that A2 to A6 and A10 are in custody and the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is very much required. 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 the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is very much required and the arrested accused are still in custody, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.
-sd/- 16/10/2020 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, VANIAMPADI.
2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.
3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, JAMUNAMARATHUR POLICE STATION, THIRUVANNAMALAI DISTRICT.
CC to Mr.G.Vinodh Kumar Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.16581/2020 Date :16/10/2020 MK:28/10/2020 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/