Mr.C.Paranthaman, v. The Inspector Of Police,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Twenty Fifth day of February Two Thousand Nineteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.DHANDAPANI CRL OP(MD) No.2846 of 2019 1 C.PARANTHAMAN 2 G.PRABAVATHI ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED Nos.1 and 2 Vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, AYAKUDI POLICE STATION, PALANI TALUK, DINDIGUL DISTRICT, DINDIGUL.

(CRIME.NO.12/2019) ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioners : MR.T.LAJAPTHI ROY Advocate For Respondent : MR.K.SUYAMBULINGA BHARATHI, Government Advocate(Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences under Section 294(b) and 307 of IPC, in Cr.No.12 of 2019 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2.It is the case of the prosecution that the first petitioner is working as Village Administrative Officer and the second petitioner is his wife. Due to previous enmity with an intention to commit murder, the petitioners poured the acid into the minor children of defacto complainant, thereby they sustained grievious injuries and admitted in the hospital. Hence, the complaint. 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. The injured persons committed injuries themselves. Due to previous civil dispute, the defacto complainant used this incident against the petitioners. He would further submits that the investigation is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

completed and the injured persons in this case were discharged from the hospital. Accordingly, he prayed for anticipatory bail. 4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the State would submit that the investigation is still pending and the earlier applications filed by the petitioners in Crl.O.P.(MD). Nos.816 and 817 of 2019 seeking anticipatory bail was dismissed as withdrawn. Further, considering the nature of offence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 5.Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and considering the heinous nature of offence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 6.Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed. sd/- 25/02/2019 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, AYAKUDI POLICE STATION, PALANI TALUK, DINDIGUL DISTRICT, DINDIGUL.

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

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.2846 of 2019 Date :25/02/2019 TM PK/JC/SAR-3/28.02.2019 : 2P/3C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/