Manoj v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Twenty Ninth day of January Two Thousand and Twenty Four PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.DHANDAPANI 1 MANOJ 2 SIVA 3 MAHESH 4 NAVARAJ ... PETITIONERS / ACCUSED 1 TO 4 Vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE PATTUKOTTAI TOWN POLICE STATION, THANJAVUR DISTRICT.
(CRIME NO.44 OF 2024) ... RESPONDENT(S) / COMPLAINANT(S) For Petitioner : Mr.K.M.KARUNAKARAN Advocate For Respondent : Mr.S.MANIKANDAN, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. PRAYER:- FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN CRIME NO.44 OF 2024 ON THE FILE OF THE RESPONDENT POLICE.
ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners/A1 to A4, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence under Sections 341, 294(b), 324 and 506(ii) of 1/3
IPC, in Crime No.44 of 2024, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that on 17.01.2024, at about 10.00 p.m, when the petitioners were going to wash their hands after taking food in the Tiffen Centre, the defacto complainant along with anther person entered into that Tiffen Centre for taking food. On seeing the defacto complainant, the first petitioner forced the defacto complainant to pay the bill for already they ate. When the same was refused by the defacto complainant, they abused the defacto complainant in filthy language and attacked him with Iron Rod, knife, Plastic Chair, Table, Bricks etc., and caused injuries to him. Thereby, the defacto complainant made a complaint before the Law Enforcing Agency.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are an innocent person and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the injured was discharged from the hospital. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that the petitioners are the Habitual Offenders. The petitioners 1 & 4 are having 1 previous case i.e., 302 IPC case. The second petitioner is having 7 previous cases. Among them, 1 case is 302 IPC case. The third petitioner is having 3 previous cases. Among them, 1 case is 307 IPC case. Hence, he vehemently, opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 2/3
5.The petitioners are the Habitual Offenders and they threatened the defacto complainant to pay the bill for already they ate, which is heinous in nature. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 6.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. sd/- 29/01/2024 / TRUE COPY / /02/2024 Sub-Assistant Registrar ( C.S. I / II / III / IV ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
DSS TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE PATTUKOTTAI TOWN POLICE STATION, THANJAVUR DISTRICT.
2 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
ORDER
IN Date :29/01/2024 SA/JGB/SAR. /05.02.2024/3P/3C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023. 3/3