Velmurugan v. The State Rep By Its,

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.

Apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No.204 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b) and 109 of BNS, 2023, the present petition has been filed seeking anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution as per the defacto complainant/ victim Arunkumar is that, on 26.07.2024, when he was near a temple, around 9.00 p.m, some unknown person poured kerosene on him and set him fire, and he suspected one Rajkumar, his house owner's son. The defacto complainant/ victim was admitted in the hospital and later, he died on 30.07.2024, without responding to the treatment. Based on the complaint, a case in Crime No.204 of 2024 was registered against the accused.

3. Pleading innocence on the part of the petitioner, false implication in the case, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks indulgence of this court. He would submit that the petitioner is a fisherman by profession. He would further submit that the petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court.

4. The case of the prosecution as putforth by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police, is that, on the complaint given by the victim/deceased a case was registered. He would submit that originally he had suspected one Rajkumar, further, during the course of investigation, it came to light that the petitioner suspected that his wife was having illicit intimacy with the victim/deceased and due to family quarrel, the petitioner's wife committed suicide by consuming poison and in order to wreck vengeance, the petitioner had poured kerosene on the victim/deceased. He would submit that the kerosene were used for fishing activity, which was poured on the victim and the accused had set fire.

He would further submit that the victim had initially suspected one Rajkumar, later, during the course of investigation, it was found that the petitioner is the actual assailant and, at the relevant time, the presence of the petitioner has also been confirmed by the CDR location. He would further submit that there are ample evidence to show that the petitioner is the accused in this case, hence, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is very much required.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent Police and perused the materials available on record.

6. Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 10.12.2024 dsn

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.

dsn 10.12.2024