Mayandi @ Katta Mayandi, v. The Inspector Of Police,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Nineteenth day of March Two Thousand Eighteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice R.PONGIAPPAN CRL OP(MD) No.4296 of 2018 MAYANDI @ KATTA MAYANDI ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED Vs THE STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHERANMBAHADEVI POLICE STATION, CHERANMAHADEVI, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT .

(IN CRIME NO.158 OF 2017) ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.S.SATHYA CHIDAMBARAM Advocate For Respondent : Mr.SUYAMBULINGA BHARATHI Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C.

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner, who is arrayed as accused, was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 27.06.2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 307 and 506(ii) in Crime No.158 of 2017, on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is said to have assaulted him by using deadly weapons and also criminally intimidated him. Thus, on complaint, a case has been registered against the petitioner for the above said offences. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he did not commit any offence as alleged by the prosecution and his name has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody from 27.06.2017.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the State submitted that the investigation 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 petitioner went to the place, in which, the defacto complainant was present and assaulted him by using Aruval. Further, he made life https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

threat to him. In the above circumstances, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made submission that the petitioner is in judicial custody form 27.06.2017. It is true, further detention is not necessary for completing the investigation. However, on going through the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), it would appear the petitioner is having following seven previous cases:

S.No Crime No.

Sections 133/2014 379 IPC Sand theft 2.

200/2014 379 IPC Sand theft 3.

130/2015 379 IPC Sand theft 4.

146/2015 379 IPC Sand theft 5.

9/2016 147, 294(b), 323, 506(ii) IPC and 3(i) 10 SC/ST Act 134/2016 341, 294(b), 323, 324, 506 (ii) IPC 149/2015 341, 302 @ 147, 148, 149, 341, 302 and 120(b) IPC

7. Considering the previous antecedents of the petitioner, this Court came to the conclusion that if this type of petitioner is enlarged on bail, there may be a chance for tampering the witnesses and hampering the investigation. Hence, this Court is not inclined to enlarged the petitioner on bail.

8. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

sd/- 19/03/2018 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHERANMBAHADEVI POLICE STATION, CHERANMAHADEVI, TIRUNELVELI DIST.

2 THE OFFICE INCHARGER, BORSTAL SCHOOL, NANGUNERI 3 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI trp JAM/28/03/2018/ CM-VR / SAR 1/ 2p-4c

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.4296 of 2018 Date :19/03/2018 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/