Prakash v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Twenty Fourth day of April Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT THE HON`BLE MR JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM CRL OP(MD) No.6448 of 2015 1 PRAKASH 2 SINGARAJ 3 DANALAKSHMI 4 KARUTHAKANNAN 5 SATHEESH @ SATHEESHKUMAR 6 KUMARESAN 7 RANJITH 8 CHINNA VEERAN @ CHINNA VEERU ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.2, 4 TO 10 Vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE VIRUVEEDU POLICE STATION, NILAKKOTTAI TALUK, DINDIGUL DISTRICT. CRIME NO.37/2015 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.V.PASUMPON Advocate For Respondent : MR.K.V.RAJARAJAN, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners, who are arrayed as A2, A4 and A10 in Crime No.37 of 2015 on the file of the respondent police, apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 323, 324, 506(ii) and 307 of IPC, seek anticbatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that due to civil dispute, the accused have trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant and attacked with lethal weapons.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent person and they have been falsely implicated in this case due to civil dispute.

4. The learned counsel for the intervenor vehemently opposed the petition stating that the de facto complainant is old man and he was brutally attacked by the petitioners and thereby sustained grievous injuries in both legs and hands and he is taking treatment as in patient from 30.03.2015. Subsequently, the other accused have made phone calls to the son of the de facto complainant and threatened him. The counsel has also produced the photo of the injured.

4. Heard the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side). https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the de facto complainant has sustained grievous injuries and that he is still in hospital, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

6. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. sd/- 24/04/2015 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO

1. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE VIRUVEEDU POLICE STATION, NILAKKOTTAI TALUK, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.

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

+1. CC to M/S.V.PASUMPON Advocate SR.No. 21975 SR : 04.05.2015 : 2P/4C

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.6448 of 2015 Date :24/04/2015 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/