Aravindhan v. State Represented By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 30.09.2024

CORAM

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice P.DHANABAL CRL OP.No.23830 of 2024 Aravindhan S/o. Subramani ... Petitioner /A1 Vs State rep. by:- The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kandili Police Station, Tirupathur.

... Respondent [Cr. No.482 of 2024] PRAYER: - The Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., praying to grant bail to the petitioner/Accused in Crime No.482 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner : Mr. R. Sankarasubbu for Mr. R. Parthiban For Respondent : Mr. S. Vinoth Kumar Government Advocate (Criminal side)

ORDER

The petitioner/Accused No.1, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 23.08.2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 127(2), 115(2) and 140(2) of B.N.S. in Cr. No.482 of 1/5

2024 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 23.08.2024, at about 12 p.m., when the defacto complainant was on his way to home near Molakaarampatti Junction, the petitioner along with other accused, kidnapped him in a Silver Colour Renault car and assaulted him and demanded Rs.1 crore from his relations and received Rs.12 lakhs from his brother-in-law, who is none other than this petitioner. Hence the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 23.08.2024 for the alleged offences 126(2), 127(2), 115(2) and 140(2) of B.N.S., that as per the allegations levelled against the petitioner is that he engaged some persons and abducted the defacto complainant and demanded Rs.1 crore and also received Rs.12 lakhs from the brother-in-law of the petitioner, in fact, this petitioner is no way connected with the said offence, that the petitioner is none other than the brother-in-law of the 2/5

defacto complainant, that both are having some previous enmity and therefore, the defacto complainant has lodged the present complaint before the defacto complainant and he is in judicial custody from 23.08.2024. Hence he prayed to grant bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that this petitioner is the prime accused, engaged some cooligan and kidnapped the defacto complainant and demanded Rs.1 crore and thereafter, Rs.12 lakhs was paid and thereafter the defacto complainant was relieved, that there are 11 accused involved in this case and 5 accused only were secured by the respondent police and the remaining accused are still absconding and only a meager amount of Rs.2.5 lakhs was recovered and the remaining amount has to be recovered and investigation is at initial stage. Hence, he strongly opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the rival submissions on either side, considering 3/5

the fact that investigation is at initial stage and considering the gravity of offences, I am declined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 30.09.2024 index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking order mjs To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tirupathur District. 2.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.

3. The The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kandili Police Station, Tirupathur.

4. The Superintendent of Police, Central Prison, Vellore. P.DHANABAL ,J mjs 4/5

CRL.OP.No.23830 of 2024 30.09.2024 5/5