Murugesan v. The Inspector Of Police

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 05.11.2022 for the alleged offence under Section 307, 341, 506(ii) of I.P.C. and subsequently altered into Sec.147, 148, 302, 341 and 506(ii) of I.P.C. in Crime No.416 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of prosecution is that A1 introduced one A2, the petitioner herein, who is director of M/s. Green Agro Tech (GAT) at T.Nagar, to the defacto complainant and stated that the company presently giving high returns of interest on investment of amount, believing his words, the defacto complainant invested a sum of Rs.13,00,000/- and later she came to know that the company was closed two months back and a new branch was opened at Mogappair and immediately, she went to the company and demanded her amount, thereby a wordy quarrel arose between them, however, the husband of defacto complainant's husband was threatened with dire consequences by the accused persons over phone and

also warned them not to ask return of money. Subsequently, some persons came in a bike and attacked her husband with knife and they escaped from the spot, thereby he sustained grievous injuries and he died on 26.09.2022. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this is the second petition seeking for bail and he is no way connected with the offence and he has not at all committed any offence as alleged by the respondent police. He would submit that he has been falsely implicated in this case and he will abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court. He would further submit that the investigation is almost completed and that the petitioner has been suffering incarceration from 05.11.2022. Hence, he prayed to grant bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that totally, there are 12 accused and the petitioner is arrayed as A9. He would submit that the specific overtact against this petitioner is that he attacked deceased with knife. He would submit that when the defacto complainant and her husband demanded to repay the amount paid by them, there was a wordy quarrel between them and subsequently he was attacked

by some persons, thereby her husband succumbed to injuries and died. He would submit that no previous case pending against him and this is the second petition seeking bail and the earlier petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn. Hence, if he is released on bail, he would hamper the investigation and tamper the witnesses. Therefore, he opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by both counsel and considering the fact that the investigation is in preliminary stage and also considering the gravity of offence committed by the petitioner and also considering the fact that there is possibility of tampering the witnesses and hampering the investigation, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

22.12.2022 rpp

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

rpp 22.12.2022