Durai v. Police Department
RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN,J.
The petitioner/A1, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 294(b), 143, 189, 506 (i) of IPC in Crime No.150 of 2023, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that one Saritha, Women Head Constable, 1883 Desur Police Station, Vandavasi Sub Division, the defacto complainant lodged a complaint before the Inspector of Police stating that on 27.06.2023, the petitioner came to the office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vandavasi and he asked one Selvi to come outside the office and shouted the said Selvi stating that "why you came to the DSP office?" at that time, one David Rajkumar, SSI, asked the petitioner not to shout, but the petitioner gathered public, threatened the police officials and conducted road roko and blocked the road. Hence, the complaint.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in connection with Cr.No.104 of 2023, one defacto complainant-Selvi went to the 1/4
office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police and he just accompanied her, since she belongs to the same community. He also produced the alleged video of the altercation between the petitioner and the said Deputy Superintendent of Police, who is in civil dress. Hence, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
4. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police would submit that when the DSP was enquiring the said defacto complainant, this petitioner/accused unnecessarily interfered with and prevented the official from discharging the duty and hence the complaint. He further submitted that the investigation is under progress and hence, he vehemently opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police.
6. After seeing the alleged video and considering the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), I find that the case needs 2/4
investigation and hence, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
7.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 10.08.2023 ars 3/4
RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN,J.
ars 10.08.2023 4/4