Pandiyan @ Thirumuruga Padiyan v. Inspector Of Police

Crl.O.P.No.19090 of 2022 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

The petitioners who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 147, 448, 195A and 506(2) of IPC, in Crime No.407 of 2022, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners went to the defacto complainant's house and directed him to put deposition in favour of them in S.C.No.305 of 2015 which is pending before the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem and also threatened him with dire consequences not to depose against them. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the first petitioner was a President of Athanurpatti Panchayat, Vazhapadi, Salem District. He has been doing welfare work to his panchayat. A false case has been foisted as against the petitioner in the case of murder in S.C.No.305 of 2015. In that case, the defacto complainant deposed as P.W.1 as early as on 21.06.2022. Whereas, the complaint was lodged only on 10.07.2022 alleging that on 05.07.2022, the petitioner entered into the house and threatened the witnesses not to depose in the murder case. He further submitted that the petitioners have

nothing to do with the alleged occurrence. If at all any occurrence took place, the defacto complainant ought to have informed before the Trial Court. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that there are totally 7 accused in which the petitioners are arrayed as A1 to A6. A1 was already convicted in Crime No.1365 of 1998 and subsequently he was acquitted by this Court in an appeal. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. A perusal of the FIR revealed that the petitioners went to the house of the P.W.1 after deposition namely after 21.06.2022 and keep on threatening the other witnesses not to depose against them in a murder case. Therefore, it does not mean that after deposition no occurrence was taken place in residence of P.W.1. Further, the FIR registered for the occurrence took place from 05.07.2022 and not on 05.07.2022. That apart, the petitioners are involved in so many cases and their antecedents are very bad.

6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the bad antecedents of the petitioners, the custodial interrogation of the

petitioners is very much required in this case. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 12.08.2022 mn

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

mn Crl.O.P.No.19090 of 2022 12.08.2022