Jeyanthar, S/O.Raja v. The Inspector Of Police,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Eighth day of April Two Thousand Nineteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.DHANDAPANI CRL OP(MD) No.5277 of 2019 JEYANTHAR ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED NO.7 Vs STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TOWN WEST POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.

CRIME NO.544 OF 2012 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : Mr.M.CHELLAPANDIAN, Advocate For Respondent : Mr.K.SUYAMBULINGA BHARATHI, Government Advocate(Crl.Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C.

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to Judicial custody on 02.02.2019, for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302, 201 r/w 149 IPC and 25 (1-B) (a), 27 (1) Arms Act, 1959 in Crime No.544 of 2019 on the file of the respondent police seek bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the respondent police registered a case against eight accused persons including the petitioner. After the investigation, the respondent police filed a charge sheet and the case was taken on file in P.R.C.No.8 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, No.I, Dindigul, that during the pendency of the case, initially the petitioner has not turned up for the hearing, NBW was ordered to be issued on 26.12.2018 and on execution of warrant, he was remanded on 02.02.2019. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application for bail before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Dindigul and the same was dismissed. Hence, this petition.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and he has nothing to do with the alleged offence. He would further submit that since the non appearance of the petitioner, NBW was issued against him and he was arrested.

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

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that since the non appearance of the petitioner, committal proceedings not yet to be completed. He would further submit that there is three previous cases are pending against the petitioner. Hence, he opposed for grant of bail.

5.Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact since the committal proceedings not yet to be completed, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

6. Hence the bail petition is dismissed.

sd/- 08/04/2019 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO

1. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TOWN WEST POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.

2. THE OFFICER INCHARGE, DISTRICT JAIL, DINDIGUL.

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

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.5277 of 2019 Date :08/04/2019 MS/MMS/SAR-4/15.04.2019/2P.4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/