Hariharasudhan v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the First day of February Two Thousand and Twenty Four PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.DHANDAPANI HARIHARASUDHAN ... Petitioner / Accused Rank not known Vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE PATTIVEERANPATTI POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.

(CRIME NO.61/2023) ... Respondent / Complainant For Petitioner :

M/s.S.Vikaram, Advocate For Respondent :

Mr.S.Manikandan, Government Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. PRAYER : FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN CRIME NO.61/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE RESPONDENT POLICE ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner/Accused Rank Not Known, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences under Sections 174 Cr.P.C., (Suspicious Death) altered into Section 304(2) of IPC, in Cr.No.61 of 2023, on the file 1/4

of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant and her deceased husband were working as coolie in a coconut grove. A1 and his wife informed the owner of the coconut grove that earlier the defacto complainant's husband was in jail. Hence, the owner of the coconut grove stopped them from the job. On 31.03.2023, at about 12.30 p.m, when the defacto complainant and her husband questioned about the same to A1 and his wife, they abused them in filthy language and pushed down the defacto complainant's husband. From that occurrence, the defacto complainant's husband got ill-health. Hence, he was taken to hospital. However, he died. Hence, the case.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that the name of the petitioner was not mentioned in the FIR. At the time of occurrence, there was only wordy altercation between them and the defacto complainant's family. In that occurrence, no one has sustained injury. Only due to the ill-health of the deceased, he died. Hence, he prays for grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the State would submit that the anticipatory bail petition filed by the co-accused in Crl.OP(MD)No.21341 of 2023 2/4

was dismissed by this Court, on 27.11.2023. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5.Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material records of the case.

6.Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the earlier anticipatory bail petition filed by the co-accused was dismissed by this Court, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. sd/- 01/02/2024 / 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, Pattiveeranpatti Police Station, Dindigul District.

2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

3/4

ORDER

IN Date :01/02/2024 ED/ GS /SAR- (06/02/2024) 4P / 3C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 4/4