M.Karanthan, v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Twenty Second day of January Two Thousand Nineteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.NIRMAL KUMAR CRL OP(MD) No.808 of 2019 M.KARANTHAN ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED NO.2 Vs STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VADAMADURAI POLICE STATION, VADAMADURAI, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.
(CRIME.NO.17/2019) ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : Mr.V.MUTHUSAMUNDEESWARAN Advocate For Respondent : K.SUYAMBULINGA BHARATHI Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Section 302 of IPC in Cr.No.17 of 2019 seek anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 10.01.2019 at about 07.00 p.m the defacto complainant and his son had gone along with the first accused to the petitioner's garden. The defacto complainant had earlier given around Rs.1,50,000/- for purchase of Serpant Rubies (precious stones), where the first accused has represented that this stone has got great powers, believing the same he had paid a some money. Despite the receipt of money, the first accused did not hand over the precious stone. Later the defacto complainant and his son along with his relatives came to spot and enquired about the precious stone, due to which a wordy quarrel arose between them, as a result of which the first accused stabbed the Sivakumar with knife and ran away. Then the defacto complainant took Sivakumar to the hospital. On the way to hospital the said Sivakumar died. Thereafter the case came to be registered.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that there is no specific overt act against the petitioner, except the reason that the incident took place in his garden. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and he has nothing to do https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
with the alleged offence.
4. The learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) would submit that totally there are six accused in this case. A4 and A6 are still absconding. He would also submit that investigation is at pre mature stage. He would also submit that this petitioner has actively participated in the Crime.
5.Taking into consideration the serious nature of allegations in the First Information Report and the offence committed in grave in nature, this court is of the view that this petition is liable to be dismissed as being devoid of merits.
6. In the result, this petition is dismissed. sd/- 22/01/2019 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE VADAMADURAI POLICE STATION, VADAMADURAI, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.
2 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
PS/PN/SAR-4/28.01.20196/2P/3C
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.808 of 2019 Date :22/01/2019 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/