Johnkennady v. State Rep.By

P.DHANABAL, J.

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioners, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 09.08.2024, seeking bail in Crime No.181 of 2024, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 133, 140(2), 310(2), 311, 351(3) of BNS, 2023 and Section 3 of TNPPDL Act, 1982.

2. The case of the prosecution as per the de-facto complainant, is that on 07.08.2024, at about 6.00 a.m, the petitioners along with other accused, abducted the defacto complainant in his car, attacked him with a wooden rod and also caused damage to the car mirror, extorted money, and gold jewels from him, totally worth about Rs.11,47,500/-. under the pretext of buying gold. Subsequently, the accused persons made him nude, took a video on a cell phone, and also threatened with dire consequences. Hence, the complaint.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that

the petitioners are innocent persons and they have been falsely implicated in this case. They have not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. He further submitted that the petitioners are in judicial custody from 09.08.2024. Hence, he prayed for bail stating that, the petitioners are ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court.

4. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police raised an objection stating that on the date of the alleged occurrence, the petitioners along with other accused, abducted the defacto complainant, attacked him with a wooden rod, caused damage to the car mirror, extorted money, and gold jewels from him, totally worth about Rs.11,47,500/-. under the pretext of buying gold. Subsequently, the accused persons made him nude, took a video on a cell phone, and also threatened with dire consequences. He further submits that these petitioners looted Rs.10,00,000/- from the defacto complainant and the same was not recovered from them. He further submits that the second petitioner has been detained as "Goonda" under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. He further submits that the investigation in this case

is still pending. However, he opposed to grant bail to the petitioners.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) and also perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, grave nature of offence and also considering the fact that the second petitioner has been detained as "Goonda" under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, and the investigation is at initial stage, at this stage, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 18.10.2024 drl P.DHANABAL, J.

drl

18.10.2024