Vasanth v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Eighth day of February Two Thousand and Twenty Four PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.DHANDAPANI VASANTH ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED (RANK NOT KNOWN) Vs 1.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE MADUKKUR POLICE STATION, THANJAVUR DISTRICT, CRIME NO.7/2024 ... RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT 2.NAMACHIVAYAM ...PETITIONER/INTERVENER/ DEFACTO COMPLAINANT IN CRL MP(MD)NO.1493 OF 2024 For Petitioner : MR.B.ANANDAN Advocate For Respondent : MR.P.KOTTAICHAMY Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) For Intervener : MR.I.ROMEO ROY ALFRED, Advocate PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. PRAYER: FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN CRIME NO.7/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE RESPONDENT POLICE 1/5
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 offences punishable under Section 307 of IPC in Crime No.7 of 2024, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant was illegally running a gold loan pawn shop business by name, Vinayaga Jewellery Pawn Shop. He has branches in Pattukottai, Madukkur and Siramelkudi areas. On 18.12.2023 at about 05.30 p.m., the defacto complainant was travelling on his two wheeler from Madukkur towards Siramelkudi on the road from west to east direction, at that time, a white car bearing Registration No.TN-04-K-3488 came behind and hit the defacto complainant.
Due to which, the defacto complainant fell down along with his vehicle and he initially thinking it was only an accidental collision. Subsequently, the defacto complainant tried to get up and lift his vehicle, the car which hit him took a U-turn and came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him and thereafter, the said car rammed into the defacto complainant's two wheeler again and he was thrown away and fell down. However, the defacto complainant survived with some internal injuries. In this situation, a woman named Gunavathy who works at the defacto complainant's Madukkur Pawn shop, has been absent from the work for the past few days. He suspects fraud to the tune of Rs.2 crores in the said pawn shop.
said Gunavathy, her boyfriend, Vasanth and her brother Ravikumar have planned to murder the defacto complainant in order to escape from the misappropriation of cash. Thereby, the defacto complainant made a complaint before the respondent police on the same day and the respondent police assigned CSR number and thereafter, a criminal case was registered on 09.01.2024. Hence the case. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that earlier the defacto complainant had misbehaved with the said Gunavathy and the same was videographed, for which, the very same petitioner made a complaint before the respondent police and the said complaint is pending. In order to escape from the said complaint, the present complaint was filed on 09.01.2024 and admittedly, the accident was happened only on 18.12.2023. Hence, he prays for grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
4.The learned counsel for the intervenor would submit that admittedly, the petitioner is the boy friend of the said Gunavathy, who worked at the defacto complainant's pawn shop. At that time, she misappropriated a sum of Rs.3,21,98,400/- from the pawn shop and escaped from India. Now she is in London and on her instructions, the petitioner and one Ravikumar, who is the brother of the said Gunavathy had planned to murder the defacto complainant. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 3/5
5.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) would submit that there are five accused involved in this case and A1 was already arrested and on his confession, makes it clear that all the accused persons had planned to commit murder of the defacto complainant in order to escape from the misappropriation of cash done by the said Gunavathy and the investigation is in preliminary stage and hence, he strongly opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 6.Considering the serious allegation made against the petitioner and also considering the fact that the investigation is in preliminary stage, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 7.In the result, this petition is dismissed.
sd/- 08/02/2024 / TRUE COPY / /02/2024 Sub-Assistant Registrar (CS- I/ II / III / IV ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
SJI TO 1.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE MADUKKUR POLICE STATION, THANJAVUR DISTRICT, 4/5
2 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
+1 CC to M/s.B.ANANDAN, Advocate ( SR-1735[I] dated 12/02/2024 ) +1 CC TO MR.I.ROMEO ROY ALFRED, Advocate SR-1618
ORDER
IN Date :08/02/2024 RK/GS (13/02/2024) 5P / 5C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 5/5