Vignesh, S/O Ayyappan, v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Eleventh day of August Two Thousand Sixteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice V.M.VELUMANI CRL OP(MD) No.13821 of 2016 VIGNESH, ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED Vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ANNANAGAR POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT CRIME NO. 1851 OF 2016 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT VANI ... PETITIONER/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT/ INTERVENER For Petitioner : M/S.K. MALATHI Advocate For Respondent : MR.P.KANNITHEVAN Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) For Intervener : MR.R.KARUNANIDHI, Advocate PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C.

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner is arrayed as accused, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody for more than 37 days, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 307 and 506(ii) IPC, in Crime No.1851 of 2016, on the file of the respondent police and hence, seeks bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that in the month of February, 2016, the petitioner teased the victim and therefore the de facto complainant made a complaint and on that complaint, the respondent police warned him. Thereafter, on 19.05.2016, the victim was given marriage to one Stalin @ Vinoth. Due to the previous motive, on 25.06.2016, at about 09.00 a.m.

, when the victim went along with her sister and also a relative, in a lane of Noon Meal Centre situated on the backside of Middle School in Melamadai, the petitioner waylaid her and attacked her with knife and cut his neck and also threatened the others with dire consequences. On complaint, a case has been registered for the above said offences. 3.The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is an innocent and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Both the petitioner and victim were loved each other https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.

and the parents of the victim refused to give her in marriage to the petitioner and therefore a false complaint has been given. The petitioner is in judicial custody for more than 37 days. 4.The learned counsel for the intervenor reiterated the averments made in the complaint and also produced the photographs of the victim showing the injuries sustained by her in the occurrence. 5.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) submitted that the victim refused to marry the petitioner and due to that motive the petitioner attacked her with knife on her neck and caused injuries and though the injured person had been discharged from the hospital, the allegation against the petitioner is serious in nature. Investigation is pending. If the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he will tamper the witnesses and hamper the investigation. 6.Considering the serious nature of allegations made against the petitioner and also injuries sustained by the victim, this court is not inclined to enlarge bail to the petitioner. Hence, this petition is dismissed.

sd/- 11/08/2016 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

SMN TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,ANNANAGAR POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT 2 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

3. THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, MADURAI. +1. CC to M/S.R.KARUNANIDHI Advocate SR.No.43616 GJM/SS3/SAR-III-17.8.16-2P-5C

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.13821 of 2016 Date :11/08/2016 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/