Murugan v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Thirtieth day of June Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice K.KALYANASUNDARAM CRL OP(MD) No.10798 of 2015 MURUGAN ... PETITIONER /SOLE ACCUSED Vs THE STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE SELLUR POLICE STATION, MADURAI DT, CRIME NO.1022/2013 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.V.ANGUSAMY Advocate For Respondent : Mr.K.V.RAJARAJAN, Government Advocate(crl.side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C.

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner, who is the sole accused in Crime No.1022 of 2013 on the file of the respondent police, was arrested on 25.11.2014 for the alleged offences punishable under Section 363 of I.P.C., and hence, seeks bail.

2. According to the de-facto complainant, his daughter aged about 13 years was missing and after taking several efforts, he could not find out his daughter and she returned to the house after four hours.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was convicted in criminal case for offence under Section 363 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment and after serving the sentence, when he came out, his wife was not ready to live with him and she deserted the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner has lost his parents and he suffering from mental illness. It is further submitted that the petitioner has involved in more than 15 cases and in all the cases, there is no allegation of sexual assault, molestation and there is no allegation of trafficking and the learned counsel submitted that the petitioner may be released on bail.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) filed a counter affidavit opposing the bail petition and also submitted that the petitioner is a habitual offender and he has involved in more than https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

10 cases of similar nature. It is further submitted that the petitioner was detained under Act 14/1982, subsequently, the detention order was quashed by this Court.

5. Considering the serious objection of the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) and the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Hence, this petition is dismissed. However, it is open to the petitioner to approach the proper authority for taking treatment.

sd/- 30/06/2015 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1.THE ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

2.THE SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL PRISON, MADURAI. 3.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE SELLUR POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT.

+1. CC to M/S.V.ANGUSAMY Advocate SR.No.34983

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.10798 of 2015 Date :30/06/2015 RG.01.07.2015 2P/5C.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/