Jayaprakash, v. The Inspector Of Police,
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Eighth day of March Two Thousand Eighteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice R.PONGIAPPAN CRL OP(MD) No.2658 of 2018 1 JAYAPRAKASH, 2 RAJA, 3 MAHESH, ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED No.8,9,10 Vs STATE REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SILAIMAN POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT.
(CRIME NO.50/2018) ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioners : M/S.N.MOHIDEEN BASHA Advocate For Respondent : MR.K.SUYAMBULINGA BHARATHI, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners, who are arrayed as accused nos. A8 to A10, apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 419, 364-A, 506(ii), 307 and 395 of IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act, 2002, in Crime No.212 of 2017, seek anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners along with other accused are said to have claded the police uniform and entered into the house of the defacto complainant and kidnapped the husband of the defacto complainant for the purpose of ransom. Thus, on complaint, a case has been registered against the petitioners.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they did not commit any offence as alleged by the prosecution and their names have been falsely implicated in this case.
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
4.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that the investigation of the case is pending. 5.The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side are considered.
6. It is alleged, during the time of occurrence, the petitioners being A8 to A10 along with other accused cladding the police officers uniform entered into the house of the defacto complainant and kidnapped the husband of the defacto complainant, for the purpose of ransom. During the time of investigation, out of 12 accused, 7 accused were arrested and remanded to judicial custody, thereafter, the uniforms used by the accused at the time of offence also recovered. So, considering the manner of offence committed by the petitioners, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is very much necessary for completing the investigation. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. sd/- 08/03/2018 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SILAIMAN POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT.
2 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.2658 of 2018 Date :08/03/2018 SMA/VR/SAR-2/19.03.2018:2P/3c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/