Palaninathan @ Sonai v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Eleventh day of January Two Thousand Eighteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice R.PONGIAPPAN CRL OP(MD) No.534 of 2018 1 PALANINATHAN @ SONAI 2 THAVASI 3 THANGA MANICKAM 4 JEGANATHAN 5 HARI 6 VIJAYA RAMALINGAM ... PETITIONERS / ACCUSED Rank Not Known Vs THE STATE REPRESENTED BY ITS THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE SAYALKUDI POLICE STATION, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT (CRIME NO.2/2018) ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioners : Mr.M.SIVA RAMAKRISHNAN Advocate For Respondent : M/S S.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 apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent Police for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 294 (b), 323, 435, 436, 354(A) and 506(ii) IPC r/w Section 3 of TNPPDL Act, in Crime No.2 of 2018 on the file of the respondent Police, seek anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners and the defacto complainant are relatives. Due to enmity the petitioners went to the defacto complainant's house and abused him by using filthy language and attacked the defacto complainant using hands and also damaged the property worth about Rs.1,20,000. Hence, the present complaint is registered against the petitioners. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners has not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution and they have been falsely implicated in this case and they are no way conncected with the offence. He further submitted that the petitioners are willing to deposit the amount with regard to the damaged property and pleads for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

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

4.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted that the petitioners and the defacto complainant are relatives. Due to enmity the petitioners have damaged the defacto complainant's bike and TATA Ace, which was worth about Rs.1,20,000/-. 5.The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side are considered. As per the representation made by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) that petitioners have damaged the defacto complainant's bike and TATA Ace, which was worth about Rs.1,20,000/-. Hence, considering the gravity of offence committed by the petitioners, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

sd/- 11/01/2018 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE SAYALKUDI POLICE STATION, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT 2 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI JAM/18/01/2018/CSL-RR/ SAR 4/ 2P-3C

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.534 of 2018 Date :11/01/2018 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/