John David Raj v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Eighteenth day of March Two Thousand and Twenty Four PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.DHANDAPANI JOHN DAVID RAJ ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED Vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE CANTONMENT POLICE STATION (L AND O), CR.NO.344/2024 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : Mr.K.RAJESHWARAN, Advocate For Respondent : Mr.S.MANIKANDAN, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C.

PRAYER:

FOR BAIL IN CRIME NO.344/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE RESPONDENT POLICE.

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner / accused, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 09.03.2024 for the alleged offence punishable under Section 174 Cr.P.C. in Crime No.344 of 2024, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks bail. 1/4

2. The case of the prosecution is that initially, the deceased committed suicide, for which, the respondent Police registered a case under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. and subsequently, the investigation was proceeded and thereafter, the case was altered into Section 306 I.P.C. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner has extracted heavy work from the deceased. It is seen that on 08.03.2024, the deceased went to the petitioner's office and there was a problem arose between themselves and the petitioner scolded her and subsequently, the deceased committed suicide. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner did not commit any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that it is purely a master and servant dispute and the petitioner is not responsible for the death of the deceased. Accordingly, he prays for bail.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent Police would submit the deceased called her father over phone on 08.03.2024 and stated that her life has been destroyed and asked to pick up her. Thereafter, the father of the deceased went to the Magazine office and the door was 2/4

locked inside and after the arrival of the petitioner and his wife, they broke opened the door and found that the daughter of the defacto complainant was hanging in the hook. Hence, he vehemently opposed for grant of bail.

5. It is seen from the report that this Court has not satisfied with investigation conducted by the present Investigating Officer. Hence, the Commissioner of Police, Trichy City, is directed to appoint a fit person to further investigate the matter.

6. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner herein and therefore, with the above observation, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.

sd/- 18/03/2024 / TRUE COPY / /03/2024 Sub-Assistant Registrar ( C.S. I / II / III / IV ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TSG TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE CANTONMENT POLICE STATION (L AND O), 3/4

2 THE OFFICER INCHARGE, DISTRICT JAIL, NAGERCOIL.

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

COPY TO:

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, +1. CC to Mr.K.RAJESHWARAN Advocate SR.No.13786[F] DATED 20/03/2024

ORDER

IN Date :18/03/2024 SS/GS/SAR- /21/03/2024/4P/6C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 4/4