Vinoth @ 12 @ Arunkumar v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Tenth day of February Two Thousand Seventeen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice A.M.BASHEER AHAMED CRL OP(MD) No.1455 of 2017 VINOTH @ 12 @ ARUNKUMAR ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED No.7 Vs State rep.by THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE PERUNGUDI POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT, (IN CRIME NO. 273/2016) ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.N.CHANDRAN Advocate For Respondent : Mr.P.Kandasamy, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C.

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 Sections 147, 148, 341, 302 and 506(ii) IPC in Crime No.273 of 2016, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate(Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent/State.

3.The learned Government Advocate(Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent states that initially there are totally seven named accused and others in this case and during investigation, there are 12 accused in this case. The petitioner herein is A7, who is named in the FIR as Karuvayan (Vinoth). A3 and A4 were arrested and released on bail by the concerned Sessions Court. A1 is in custody. A2, A5 and A6 are still absconding. A8 to A12, who are unnamed accused in this FIR were arrested and were granted statutory bail by the concerned Judicial Magistrate. The petitioner, who is A7 was arrested and he is custody from 23.11.2016 and that the investigation is still pending, since some of the accused are still absconding. The alleged overt act of the petitioner in this case as per the confession statement of the petitioner before the police is that he is said to have attacked the deceased Katturaja with aruval along with the other accused. The alleged aruval used in the occurrence was also recovered from the petitioner herein during confession.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner here is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence, as alleged by the prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in this case.

5.Considering the above overt act of the petitioner and the gravity of the charge against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, at this stage. Hence, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. sd/- 10/02/2017 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE PERUNGUDI POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT, 2 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI 3 THE SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL PRISON, MADURAI SM:SKN-RSk:SAR 3:15.02.2017:2p/4c

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.1455 of 2017 Date :10/02/2017 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/