Nagaraj v. State Rep.By

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offence initially registered as missing subsequently, was altered to offences under sections 364, 302, 201 of IPC in Crime No. 225 of 2023 on the file of respondent, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner/Accused-3 suffers from 80%, locomotive disability. It is stated that therefore it is unbelievable that the petitioner would have committed the crime. The case of the respondent is that, the defacto complainant and his family members owned 15 acres of land and the land had not been partitioned and the defacto complainant was cultivating it. The defacto complainant and his father were taking the produce to the vegetable market. But thereafter he disappeared. This was on 14.08.2023. A FIR was lodged under the caption, man missing. Subsequently, on 18.08.2023, the body was recovered after four days and thereafter, the FIR was altered to Sections 364, 302, 201 of IPC. It is stated by the 1/3

respondent that the role of the petitioner is to armour all the other accused and to screen the offence. Investigation has been done and the other accused persons have been secured and they are still in custody.

3. Even though the petitioner suffers from 80% disability, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. This Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed accordingly. 20.10.2023 nsl/rka 2/3

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN , J.

nsl/rka 20.10.2023 3/3