Madras High CourtCRL OP/24651/2021dismissed

N.Vinoth Kumar v. State Rep By

2021-12-22Honourable Mrs Justice T.V.Thamilselvi2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Twenty Second day of December Two Thousand Twenty One PRESENT The Hon`ble Mrs Justice T.V.THAMILSELVI CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.24651 of 2021 1 N.VINOTH KUMAR [ PETITIONERS / ACCUSED ] 2 L.GOVINDARAJU 3 G.MUTHUSAMY 4 GOVINDARAJ Vs 1STATE REP BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VARANJARAM POLICE STATION, KALLAKURICHI DISTRICT.

(CRIME NO.480/2021) For Petitioner : M/S.P.RAJAVEL Advocate For Respondent : MR.N.S.SUGANTHAN, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) For Intervenor : MR.P.PARAMASIVADOSS Advocate PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners, who apprehend arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 294 (b), 323 and 506 (ii) of IPC in Cr.No.480 of 2021, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant lodged a complaint before the respondent police stated that petitioners abused him with filthy languages and threated him with dire consequences. Hence, the law enforcing agency registered a case against the petitioners.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and they have been falsely implicated in this case. Hence he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that petitioners abused the and attacked the defacto complainant and threatened him with dire consequences. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

5. The learned counsel for the intervener raised objection stated that defacto complainant who is aged about 70 years who sold the property to petitioner and get partial amount a sum of Rs.8,50,000/-, but, the respondent failed to pay the remaining amount, when the defacto complainant asked about the same, respondents abused him with filthy languages and assaulted him. Hence, he vehemently opposed the grant of bail. 6.Considering the entire facts, which reveals that defacto complainant is aged about 70 years, who was cheated by the petitioners , which needs detailed investigation, this court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. -sd/- 22/12/2021 This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned TRUE COPY Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104.

TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VARANJARAM POLICE STATION, KALLAKURICHI DISTRICT.

2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

+1CC to M/S.P.PARAMASIVADOSS Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.NO.15479 CRL OP.24651/2021 Date :22/12/2021 CSK 05/01/2022 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/