Senthilkumar @ Vakkilkumar v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Fifth day of January Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT THE HON`BLE MR JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH CRL OP(MD) No.21954 of 2014 1 SENTHIL KUMAR @ VAKKIL KUMAR 2 CHANDRAN ... PETITIONERS / ACCUSED Nos.1 & 2 Vs THE STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VERAVANALLUR POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT.

CRIME NO.246/2014 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.R.RAMACHANDRAN Advocate For Respondent : M/S.A.P.BALASUBRAMANI, Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervener : MR.S.BASKAR MATHURAM, Advocate PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 449, 302, 506(ii) r/w 149 IPC in Crime No.246 of 2014 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that these petitioners along with 10 others had entered into the house of the deceased on 29.10.2014 around 08:00 p.m. and indiscriminately attacked the deceased with deadly weapons.

3. It is seen that A1 in this case is an Advocate by profession and A2 is his father. On account of previous enmity, this gang has committed the above offences. The respondent Police have filed a status report, in which they have stated that already there are two https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ cases pending against the 1st petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that FIR does not disclose any overtact alleged against the 1st petitioner and it merely states that only four persons were armed.

5. On the contrary, it is seen from the eye witness' version recorded by the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that the 1st petitioner had used Aruval and attacked the neck of the deceased. Similarly, the 2nd petitioner had also attacked the neck of the deceased. Some of the accused are absconding.

6. In view of the serious allegations against these petitioners, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to these petitioners. Hence, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

sd/- 05/01/2015 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VERAVANALLUR POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT.

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

ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.21954 of 2014 Date :05/01/2015 msm 08.01.2015 p2/3c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/