Madras High CourtCRL OP/17371/2020dismissed

R.Aravind v. State Rep By

2020-11-11Honourable Mr Justice A.D.Jagadish Chandira2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 11.11.2020

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA Crl.O.P.No.17371 of 2020 R.Aravind ... Petitioner Vs.

The State Represented by,

...Respondent

The Inspector of Police, Needamangalam Police Station, Tiruvarur District.

(Cr.No.1395 of 2020) Prayer:

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest by the respondent police concerned in Crime No.1395 of 2020 on the file of the respondent.

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Bharathy For Respondent : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz, Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

(This case has been heard through video conference) The petitioner who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 294 (b), 324 and 506 (2) of IPC, in Crime No.1395 of 2020, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution as per the defacto complainant viz., Samithurai is that due to wordy quarrel between the petitioner and the defacto complainant, the petitioner assaulted the defacto complainant with wooden log on his head and back, as a result of which, he sustained injuries. Hence, the complaint. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that the injured has been discharged from the hospital. He would further submit that there are two previous cases as against the petitioner, out of which one is under Section 307 of IPC and another one is under POCSO Act registered during the year 2019. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that there are two previous cases as against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. -sd/- 11/11/2020 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, NEEDAMANGALAM.

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

4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NEEDAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, TIRUVARUR DISTRICT.

+1 CC to M/S. D.BHARATHY Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.NO.7637 CRL OP.17371/2020 Date :11/11/2020 TA-24/11/2020 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/