S.K.V.Raja @ Rajasekaran v. Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Twentieth day of February Two Thousand and Twenty Four PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.DHANDAPANI 1 S.K.V.RAJA @ RAJASEKARAN 2 ARIVAZHAGAN ... Petitioners / Accused No.1 and 2 Vs INSPECTOR OF POLICE KATTUPUTHUR POLICE STATION, TRICHY DISTRICT.
(CRIME NO.42/2024) ... Respondent / Defacto Complainant For Petitioners :
M/s.Ramdundar Vijayraj, Advocate For Respondent :
Mr.B.Nambiselvan, Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. PRAYER : FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN CRIME NO.42 OF 2024 ON THE FILE OF THE RESPONDENT POLICE ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners/A1 & A2, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent Police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 353, 427 and 506(ii) IPC in Crime No.42 of 2024, on the file of the respondent 1/3
police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is the SubInspector of Police in Kattuputhur Police Station and on 01.02.2024, when the Police officials and Armed Force Police were on security duty at about 08.20 P.M., one Loganathan, who is the driver of the Armed Force Vehicle drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and hit the bike and sustained injuries to the driver of the two wheeler and the pillion rider died on the spot. Due to which, the petitioners and other accused persons attacked the Armed Force Government Vehicle with wooden log, iron rod and stones and threatened the defacto complainant and abused him by using filthy language and caused damages worth about Rs.50,000/-. Hence, the case.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they did not commit any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that the petitioners are only spectators and hence, he prays for anticipatory bail.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent Police would submit that there are fourteen previous cases pending against the petitioners. He would further submit that the co-accused in this case have already been granted bail and he vehemently opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners herein.
5. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the previous antecedent reported against the petitioners, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
6. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. sd/- 20/02/2024 / TRUE COPY / /02/2024 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S. I / II / III /IV) 2/3
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
TSG To 1.The Inspector of Police, Kattuputhur Police Station, Trichy District.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
+1 CC to M/s.S.RAMSUNDARVIJAYRAJ, Advocate ( SR-2100[I] dated 20/02/2024 )
ORDER
IN Date :20/02/2024 ED/ GS /SAR- (23/02/2024) 3P / 4 C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 3/3