Dhevendiran v. State Rep By Inspector Of Police

Crl.O.P.No.21693 of 2022 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324, 332, 336, 353, 435, 436, 379, 506(2) IPC r/w 3, 4, 5 of Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 in Crime No.236 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the alleged occurrence took place on 17.07.2022 in the school premises. It is alleged that the petitioner, who is said to be a reporter created a watsapp group and intimidated the accused persons and had been the reason behind the entire riot, which took place in the school premises. The accused persons are alleged to have damaged the school bus and the other properties to the tune of several crores. Hence, the complaint. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He would

further submit that he is only a reporter, who uploaded the happenings in the said school campus in his facebook account as a live video and he is no way connected with the alleged occurrence. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that the petitioner is alleged to have present in the scene of crime and intimidated the accused persons to cause damage to the vehicles and other properties belong to the school. It is also alleged that the accused persons set fire on the vehicles of the law enforcing agency. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the involvement of the petitioner in the scene of crime, the specific role of the petitioner in the alleged occurrence as he had been the reason behind the entire riot, which took place in the school premises and caused damages to the public vehicles as well as the vehicles of the law enforcing agency, this Court finds that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is very

much required. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 09.09.2022 Anu G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

Anu Crl.O.P.No.21693 of 2022 09.09.2022