Kannan v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Ninth day of May Two Thousand Eighteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mrs.Justice R.THARANI CRL OP(MD) No.7643 of 2018 1 KANNAN 2 MAYAKRISHNAN 3 BOOMI 4 MURUGESHAN ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED No.A1 to A4 Vs THE STATE OF TAMILNADU, THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KAMUTHI POLICE STATION, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT.
IN CRIME NO.96/2018 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioners : M/S.R.BABU JAGANATH, Advocate For Respondent : M/S.K.SUYAMBULINGA BHARATHI, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent Police for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 363, 342 and 506(i) of I.P.C., in Crime No.96 of 2018, on the file of the respondent Police, seek anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant who is the Senior Inspector working in the Cooperative Department was appointed as Election Officer to conduct election in the Pappankulam Cooperative credit Society. After receiving nomination papers, while returning to his house, a group of people followed him. He drove in the two wheeler of the Secretary of the Society as pillion rider. A Sumo Car with some persons came and forcibly taken the defacto complainant. After seeing the flash news in the Tv that the defacto complaint was abducted, the persons left him free.
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
3.On the side of the petitioners, it is stated that the petitioners name is not placed in the FIR. No injury is caused to the defacto complainant. Only seven unknown persons is said to have kidnapped the complainant and the complainant himself returned back. He prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 4.On the side of the respondent, it is stated that the defacto complainant is a Returning Officer in the Cooperative election. Four unknown persons and three known persons kidnapped him and then released him. Sumo Car which was used for the commission of offence is not recovered. He objected to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
5.Records perused. The Offence involved in this case is grave in nature. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the grave nature offence committed by the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. sd/- 09/05/2018 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KAMUTHI POLICE STATION, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT. 2 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.7643 of 2018 Date :09/05/2018 PK/CM/RNB/14.05.2018 : 2P/3C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/