Shanmugavel v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Twenty Ninth day of February Two Thousand and Twenty Four PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.DHANDAPANI SHANMUGAVEL ... PETITIONER / 7th ACCUSED Vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE SENTHAMARAM POLICE STATION, TENKASI DISTRICT.
CR.NO.15/2024 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.MEENAKSHISUNDARAM.V, 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.15/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE RESPONDENT POLICE.
ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Section 174 Cr.P.C., altered into Section 306 IPC in Crime No.15 of 2024, seeks anticipatory bail. 1/4
2.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant's father erected a party flag in front of his house for the past three years. Subsequently, local body people threatened the defacto complainant's father to remove the flag and hand over two feet to the local body for laying road. That apart, the accused persons continuously threatened the defacto complainant's father and his family members, due to which, the father of the defacto complainant committed suicide. 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 offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that the petitioner is the Panchayat President and the deceased encroached the government land, thereby, the petitioner insisted the deceased to remove the same and the petitioner herein is not responsible for the suicide committed by the defacto complainant's father. Accordingly, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent Police would submit that as per FIR, the petitioner and other accused continuously tortured the deceased, due to which, the deceased committed suicide. Hence, he strongly opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 2/4
5.Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available in the record.
6. It appears that this is the second application for anticipatory bail and the earlier anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner in Crl.OP(MD)No.1807 of 2024 was dismissed by this Court on 07.02.2024, considering the serious allegations levelled against the petitioner herein. Now, this application is filed by the petitioner without referring the change of circumstances to consider the case. 7.Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that there is no change in circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
8. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. sd/- 29/02/2024 / TRUE COPY / /03/2024 Sub-Assistant Registrar ( C.S. I / II / III / IV ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
SSB TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE SENTHAMARAM POLICE STATION, TENKASI DISTRICT. 3/4
2 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
+1 CC to M/s.D.NALLATHAMBI, Advocate ( SR-2600[I] dated 01/03/2024 )
ORDER
IN Date :29/02/2024 SS/GS/SAR- /11/03/2024/4P/4C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 4/4