C. Ramesh v. The State Of Tamilnadu Rep By

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 427, 307 and 506(ii) altered into under Sections 294(b), 323, 427, 506(ii) and 302 IPC in Crime No.302 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 20.06.2022 at about 8.30 a.m., the defacto complainant and his brother were doing chilly chicken business by having a road side shop at Thirupur Mangalam Road, Near EXCEL Company, Parappalayam. The deceased viz., Ragupathi, who is the relative of the defacto complainant, was working in the said shop. While they were selling in the shop, one viz., Deivendiran, who was the owner of Sabari Printing Company, came along with his friends and bought chilly chicken from the defacto complainant's shop and ate it by sitting in bricks which dumped nearby for building construction. After eating, they left the plates on the same place. On seeing their action, the deceased Ragupathi insisted them to keep the plates in the shop. At that time, the said Deivendiran, who is

arrayed as A2, slapped the deceased and the 1st accused took an iron rod from the shop of the defacto complainant and attacked at the back side of Ragupathi's head and they escaped from the place. Due to the said attack, the said Ragupathy sustained grievous injuries and he was taken to the Government Hospital, Tiruppur. Later, he was referred to Coimbatore Government Hospital for further treatment. However, Ragupathi succumbed to his injuries. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he was no way connected with the alleged offence. He further submitted that the coaccused has been arrested and released on bail. Therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that the earlier anticipatory bail petition filed by the petitioner before this Court in Crl.O.P.No.16471 of 2022 was dismissed on 15.07.2022. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Initially, the case has been registered for the offence under Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 427, 307 and 506(ii) of IPC. Thereafter, as the injured died in the hospital, the respondent police altered the offence into one under Section 302 of IPC. There are totally four accused, in which the petitioner is arrayed as A4. The petitioner, along with other accused persons, under the insistence of A1, attacked the deceased with iron road and caused grievous injuries. He was admitted in the hospital and later he died. Since the offence registered in one under Section 302 of IPC, the question of the anticipatory bail does not arise as there is a specific overt act alleged against the petitioner.

6. Considering the nature of offence committed by the petitioner and this Court had dismissed the earlier anticipatory bail petitions filed by the petitioner. However, the petitioner is still absconding and he did not surrender before the respondent and it is a case of 302 IPC and also now there is no change in circumstances of this case, Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

kv

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 23.09.2022 kv