A. Maruthaiveeran v. The Inspector Of Police,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Third day of July Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice K.KALYANASUNDARAM CRL OP(MD) No.11495 of 2015 1 A. MARUTHAIVEERAN 2 J.THIRUPATHIRAJ ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED RANK NOT KNOWN Vs STATE REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DINDIGUL TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL, CRIME NO.711/2015 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.T.LAJAPATHI ROY Advocate For Respondent : MR.K.V.RAJARAJAN Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C.

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners, who are arrayed as A1 and A2 and they were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 17.06.2015 for the alleged offence punishable under section 307 of IPC, in Crime No.711 of 2015 on the file of the respondent police and seek bail. 2.The Secretary of Dindigul Bar Association lodged a complaint stating that on 17.06.2015, the accused have abused the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dindigul and thereafter, quarrelled with the general public and also with the advocates and when this was questioned by the de-facto complainant, the accused have abused him in filthy language and also threatened him with dire consequences. It is further alleged that the accused have attempted to strangulate the de-facto complainant and also attacked him with stones. 3.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that A1 is an ex-serviceman; that on 14.06.2015, he was prevented by the advocates from entering into the court, as they were observing boycott on that day and after the wordy quarrel with the advocates, the petitioners were returned back; that on 17.06.2015 when the first petitioner/A1 appeared before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Dindigul, due to previous motive, A1 was attacked by the lawyers in the presence of the Magistrate and subsequently, this false complaint was given against them. It is further submitted that the 1st petitioner is taking treatment for heart ailment and that the accused are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.

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

4.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) submitted that even though the de-facto complainant has not sustained any injury, the accused have attempted to strangulate the de-facto complainant and also attempted to attack him with stones. It is further submitted that the investigation is at the initial stage.

5.The First Information Report reveals that both the accused have misbehaved in the open court hall on 17.06.2015 and when this was questioned, they also threatened the advocates with dire consequences.

6.Considering the nature of allegation made against the petitioners and the stage of the investigation, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners. Hence, this petition is dismissed.

sd/- 03/07/2015 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DINDIGUL TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL, 2 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, MADURAI 3 THE OFFICER INCHARGE,SUB JAIL,DINDIGUL 4 THE ADDL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.11495 of 2015 Date :03/07/2015 AA/15.07.2015/2p- 5c/ https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/