Logesh @ Logeshwaran v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Second day of February Two Thousand and Twenty Four PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.DHANDAPANI LOGESH @ LOGESHWARAN ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED No.1 Vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE BAZAAR POLICE STATION, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT.
CRIME NO.26 OF 2024 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.SHANMUGASUNDARAM.C Advocate For Respondent : Mr.S.MANIKANDAN, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. PRAYER:
FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN CRIME NO. 26 OF 2024 ON THE FILE OF THE RESPONDENT POLICE.
ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner/A1, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 30.03.2022 for the offence punishable under Sections 153, 504 and 506(ii) of IPC and 1/3
Section 67 of Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, in crime No.26 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant performed intercosts marriage and the same was objected by the petitioner's leader. Therefore, the petitioner threatened the defacto complainant and also posted messages against the defacto complainant in the social media with defamatory statement. Hence, the case.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any such offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case.
4. The learned learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondent Police would submit that the defacto complainant performed intercosts marriage and the same was objected by the petitioner's leader. Therefore, the petitioner threatened the defacto complainant and also posted messages against the defacto complainant in the social media with defamatory statement and also submitted that 10 previous cases are pending against the petitioner. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 5.Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that 10 previous cases are pending against the petitioner, this 2/3
Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 6.In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. sd/- 02/02/2024 / TRUE COPY / /02/2024 Sub-Assistant Registrar ( C.S. I / II / III / IV ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
TTA TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE BAZAAR POLICE STATION, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT. 2 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
ORDER
IN Date :02/02/2024 SS/GS/SAR- /07/02/2024/3P/3C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 3/3