Apple @ Arumugavel v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Twenty Ninth day of January Two Thousand Eighteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice R.PONGIAPPAN CRL OP(MD) No.1351 of 2018 APPLE @ ARUMUGAVEL ... PETITIONER / SOLE ACCUSED Vs THE STATE REP.BY, THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE KADAMPUR POLICE STATION, IN CRIME NO.8/2018 TUTICORIN DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.R.RAJAMOHAN 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 petitioner / sole accused, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent Police for the offence punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 506(ii) of IPC r/w Section 3 of Tamilnadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act in Crime No.8 of 2018, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that due to some wordy quarrel between the petitioner and the de facto complainant, the petitioner damaged property worth about Rs.3,000/-. Hence, the present case has been registered.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and he is no way connected with the offences, and pleads for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) submitted that the petitioner herein is having 19 previous cases on the file of Kadambur Police Station. According to him investigation is still pending.

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

5.The submissions made by the learned counsel on either side are considered. It is alleged that during the time of occurrence, the petitioner being the sole accused, assaulted the de facto complainant and damaged the property worth about Rs.3,000/- Now, as per the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side), the Kadampur Police Station are registering cases against this petitioner from the year of 2006 to till date. Accordingly, 19 previous cases were registered against this petitioner. So, considering the number of cases pending against this petitioner, it clearly reveals that the petitioner is the habitual offender. Therefore, if these type of accused person is released on bail, he may try to tamper the witnesses and hamper the investigation.

6.Taking the above said aspects into consideration and having regard to the nature of offence committed by the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner at this stage. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

sd/- 29/01/2018 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE KADAMPUR POLICE STATION, TUTICORIN DISTRICT.

2 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.1351 of 2018 Date :29/01/2018 MKV-PM-PN-SAR 1/7.2.2018/2P-3C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/