Rajendran K v. The State Rep By

Crl.O.P.No.17886 of 2022 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

The petitioners apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 120B, 385, 506(ii) IPC, in Crime No.8 of 2022, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that, the defacto complainant is a doctor by profession and running hospital in the name of M/s. Sundaram Multi Specialty Hospital in Salem District. It is alleged that the petitioners threatened the defacto complainant that he is going to file writ petition as if, the defacto complainant put up constructions illegally without any appropriate approval. The petitioner allegedly filed Writ Petitions as against the illegal constructions and after showing the same Writ Petitions in S.R. Stage, the petitioner used to threatened the defacto complainant and thereby demanded Rs. 1 crore for withdrawing the writ petition. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that false case has been lodged against the petitioner. In fact, they were issued C.S.R.No.155 of 2022 on 07.04.2022. The petitioner also filed petition for

police protection in Crl.O.P.No.8290 of 2022, wherein this Court directed the respondent police officials to conduct enquiry on the complaint lodged by the petitioner. He would further submit that the petitioners also filed a complaint before the State Human Rights Commission and National Commission for scheduled caste and it is pending as against the police officials. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

3. The learned counsel for the intervenor submitted that the petitioner used to threat the general public and receive money from the persons who put up constructions in and around the Salem city. Thereby, the petitioners were living a luxurious life. Hence, he opposed for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that already this Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners and subsequently it was canceled on 28.04.2022 on a reason that the accused was abusing the jurisdiction of PIL for ulterior motive. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. Nowadays, these kind of illegal activities are growing like mushrooms, wherein they used to threaten the general public whoever put up constructions and thereby they demand huge money from them. Therefore, this Court is of the view that, custodial interrogation of the petitioners are very much required, hence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 01.08.2022 Sma

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

Sma Crl.O.P.No.17886 of 2022 01.08.2022