Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/9991/2015dismissed

K. M. Sahul Hameed v. The Inspector Of Police

2015-06-09Honourable Mr Justice K. Kalyanasundaram2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Ninth day of June Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice K.KALYANASUNDARAM CRL OP(MD) No.9991 of 2015 K.M.SAHUL HAMEED ..PETITIONER/SOLE ACCUSED Vs.

STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ILAYANGUDI POLICE STATION, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT.

(CR.NO.147 OF 2015) ..RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.T.SELVAN Advocate For Respondent : Mr.K.V.RAJARAJAN, Government Advocate(Crl.Side) For Intervenor : Mr.PRAHALAD RAVI, Advocate PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner, who is the sole accused in Crime No.147 of 2015 on the file of the respondent police apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 294 (b) and 506(i) of I.P.C and hence, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that one Anbazhagan, who is an Advocate, lodged a complaint alleging that he issued a legal notice on 26.05.2015 to the defacto complainant relating to a civil dispute. Instead of sending a reply notice, on 01.06.2015 at 09.00 p.m., the accused contacted him over cell phone and abused him in filthy language and thereafter, on 03.06.2015, he waylaid the defacto complainant along with his henchmen and threatened him.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the defacto complainant had issued a notice on behalf of the mother of the accused and on enquiry, his mother has informed that she did not give instruction to issue the notice. He further submitted that the petitioner contacted the defacto complainant only to clarify this aspect and he has not threatened him.

4. The learned counsel for the intervenor has produced the affidavit filed by the defacto complainant and has opposed for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Heard the learned Government Advocate(Crl. Side). 6.Considering the allegations made against the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to get anticipatory bail. Hence, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. sd/- 09/06/2015 / TRUE COPY / https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.)

TO 1 THE ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT,MADURAI. 2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,ILAYANGUDI POLICE STATION, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT.

+1. CC to M/S.PRAHALAD RAVI, Advocate SR.No.29025 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.9991 of 2015 Date :09/06/2015 PBK/AMF 11/06/2015 ::2P-4C::

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