Arumugam v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Seventeenth day of January Two Thousand Eighteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice R.PONGIAPPAN CRL OP(MD) No.750 of 2018 1 ARUMUGAM 2 MAHARAJAN ... PETITIONERS / ACCUSED No.1 & 2 Vs THE STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE MORAPPANADU POLICE STATION, THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT.
CRIME NO.6/2018 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioners: Mr.M.PRABU Advocate For Respondent : Mr.A.ROBINSON, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners/A1 and A2, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 294(b), 307 and 506(ii) of IPC, in Crime No.6 of 2018, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 09.01.2018, due to previous enmity, the defacto complainant lodged a complaint against the petitioners alleging that the petitioners assaulted the defacto complainant using iron rod and threatened him with dire consequences. Hence, the present case has been registered against the petitioners.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons, they have not been committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he prays for anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondent on instructions, would submit that nobody was injured in the alleged occurrence. He further submitted that the first petitioner has 16 previous cases and the second petitioner has three previous cases. He also produced the list of previous cases pending against these petitioners. According to the prosecution, the
investigation is still pending.
5. The submissions made by the learned counsel on either side are considered. This case has been registered against the petitioners for the alleged offence under Sections 341, 294(b), 307 and 506(ii) IPC. As per the prosecution, nobody was injured in the alleged occurrence. However, as per the case of prosecution, the petitioners herein are previously having the following cases: Cases pending against the first petitioner/A1: Sl.No.
Name of the Police Station Crime No.
Under Sections Murappanadu 19/2017 379 IPC Murappanadu 20/2017 279, 337@ 279, 337, 279 IPC Murappanadu 168/2017 341, 294(b),506(i) IPC Tirunelveli Taluk 117/2017 279, 337,304(A) IPC Tirunelveli Taluk 171/2017 379 IPC Seevalaperi 61/2012 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 323, 506(i) IPC Seevalaperi 17/2013 379 IPC Seevalaperi 53/2013 294(b) IPC Seevalaperi 65/2013 387, 506(ii) IPC Seevalaperi 72/2013 294(b), 323, 342, 506(i) IPC Seevalaperi 81/2013 379 IPC Seevalaperi 167/2014 110 Cr.P.C.
Seevalaperi 122/2015 379 IPC Seevalaperi 221/2016 337 IPC r/w 21(1)Mines and Minerals Act, 1957 Seevalaperi 29/2017 379 IPC Seevalaperi 122/2017 294(b), 307, 506(ii) IPC Cases pending against the second petitioner/A2: Sl.No.
Name of the Police Station Crime No.
Sections Seevalaperi 65/2013 387, 506(ii) IPC Seevalaperi 72/2013 294(b), 323, 342, 506(i) IPC Seevalaperi 122/2015 379 IPC So considering the number of cases pending against these petitioners clearly shows that the petitioners are habitual offenders. Hence, this Court came to the conclusion that if these type of accused/petitioners are released on bail, they may be tamper
the witness and hamper the investigation. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.
sd/- 17/01/2018 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE MORAPPANADU POLICE STATION, THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT.
2 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI PJL JAM/05/02/2018/PM-PN/ SAR 1 / 3P-3C
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.750 of 2018 Date :17/01/2018