Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/21589/2016granted

Chinnakalai @ Krishnan, v. The Inspector Of Police,

2016-11-21Honourable Mr Justice S. Vaidyanathan2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Twenty First day of November Two Thousand Sixteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice S.VAIDYANATHAN CRL OP(MD) No.21589 of 2016 1 CHINNAKALAI @ KRISHNAN, 2 VEERALAKSHMI 3 RAMSAMY 4 RENGAMMAL ..PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 to 4 Vs.

STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, OTTANCHATRAM POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.

CR.NO. 541 OF 2016 ..RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT VEERASAMY ..INTERVENOR For Petitioner : M/S.VEERA KATHIRAVAN Senior Counsel for Mr.P.MAHENDRAN Advocate For Respondent : M/s.S.PRABHA, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervenor : Mr.T.LENINKUMAR, Advocate PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C.

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners / A1 to A4, who were arrested on 09.11.2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 294(b), 324, 336, 353, 506(ii), 309 and 307 IPC and Section 3(1) TNPPDL Act in Crime No.541 of 2016 on the file of the respondent police, seek bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that on 20.10.2016 in order to provide electricity connection, while erecting electric line, the officials of the Electricity Board tried to cut the trees, which are standing in the land of the petitioners, they prevented the officials from doing so and abused the officials and one of the accused attempted to commit suicide by pouring kerosene and also damaged the Police vehicles.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that the petitioners are in judicial custody from 09.11.2016 onwards. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent Police submitted that the first accused attacked the

officials with Aruval and that the petitioners pelted stones against the police officials. She further submitted that even though the officials of the electricity board gave assurance to the petitioners that they will not cut the trees, the petitioners objected for erecting electricity line to one Veerachamy. She also submitted that the petitioners prevented the public servants from discharging their officials duty. Hence, she strongly opposed for granting bail to the petitioners.

5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also taking note of the gravity offence said to have been committed by the petitioners, this is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.

sd/- 21/11/2016 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, OTTANCHATRAM POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.

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

3 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, MADURAI. 4 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON (WOMEN), MADURAI. +1. CC to M/S.P.MAHENDRAN Advocate SR.No.71309 +1cc to M/s.T.Leninkumar, Advocate in SR.71006 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.21589 of 2016 Date :21/11/2016 PBK/GSV-PM/SAR-III 01/12/2016 ::2P-7C:

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