Dineshkumar v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Twenty Second day of January Two Thousand Eighteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice R.PONGIAPPAN CRL OP(MD) No.878 of 2018 DINESHKUMAR ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED (RANK NOT KNOWN) Vs STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PASUPATHIPALAYAM POLICE STATION, KARUR DISTRICT.

CRIME NO.953/2017 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.S.R.A.RAMACHANDHRAN Advocate For Respondent : M/S.A.ROBINSON, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent Police for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC in Crime No.953 of 2017 on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that due to previous enmity, the petitioner along with other accused attacked the deceased and thereby committed the offence of murder.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioner's name was not found in the FIR and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and he is no way connected with the offences, and pleads for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) submitted that the investigation is still pending.

5.The submissions made by the learned counsel on either side are considered. This case has been registered for the offences punishable under Section 302 IPC. As per the prosecution, there are totally 8 accused involved in the alleged offence. As of now, the main accused namely, A1 has not been arrested by the respondent Police so far. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the name of the petitioner is not found in FIR. It https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

is the settled position as in order to prove the allegation, it is not necessary that the name of the accused must be found place in FIR. As per version of the prosecution, the petitioner has the active role in the alleged occurrence. As per the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side), the investigation is not yet completed. Therefore, if anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner herein, it would prejudice the process of the investigation.

6.Taking all the above said aspects into consideration and having regard to the nature of offence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner at this stage. Accordingly, this Criminal Original petition is dismissed. sd/- 22/01/2018 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO

1. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PASUPATHIPALAYAM POLICE STATION, KARUR DISTRICT.

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

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.878 of 2018 Date :22/01/2018 MS/PM-PN/SAR.2/31.01.2018/2P.3C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/