Madras High CourtCRL OP/25221/2021dismissed

R.Vinoth v. The 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.25221 of 2021 R.VINOTH [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ] Vs THE STATE REP BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHETPET POLICE STATION, THIRUVANNAMALAI DISTRICT CRIME NO.1018/2021 For Petitioner : M/S.S.B.VISWANATHAN Advocate For Respondent : MR.N.S.SUGANTHAN, Government Advocate, (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner, who apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Section 306 of IPC in Crime No.1018 of 2021, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Dakshina was one of the subscribers of the chit conducted by A1 and on that account the deceased was liable to pay Rs.13,000/- to A1, on 20.11.2021 all the 5 Accused including this petitioner went to the house of the deceased and took his auto rickshaw with them as security for repayment of Rs.13,000/- and parked the same in Chetpet Police Station, on 21.11.2021 the father of the deceased gave a complaint to Chetpet Police Station, but it was negotiated between the parties to the dispute and it was agreed by the deceased that he would repay Rs.13,000/- on or before 30.11.2021 and took back his auto rickshaw from the police station, but instead of making repayment the deceased went to lodge complaint to the Superintendent of Police, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Thiruvannamalai on 01.12.2021 and on the same day the defacto complainant received a call from the office of the Superintendent of Police, Thiruvannamalai stating that his son Dakshina consumed poison, got fainted and was admitted in hospital, after 4 days of treatment the deceased died at the hospital on 05.12.2021. Hence the complaint.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that the balance of Rs.13,000/- on which the auto belongs to the deceased was taken by the financial, so that he was got a mental agony and committed suicide and the investigation is pending. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, only 2 accused arrested and the investigation still in initial stage, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. 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, CHETPET POLICE STATION, THIRUVANNAMALAI DISTRICT.

2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

CC to M/S.S.B.VISWANATHAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.25221/2021 Date :22/12/2021 RW 03/01/2022 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/