Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/4275/2024dismissed

Anumanthan v. The Inspector Of Police

2024-03-19Honourable Mr Justice M.Dhandapani4 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Nineteenth day of March Two Thousand and Twenty Four PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.DHANDAPANI 1 ANUMANTHAN 2 GURUSAMY 3 SIVANESAN 4 MURUGESWARI ... PETITIONERS / ACCUSED No.4,6,10 & 15 Vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE SEMPATTI POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.

(CRIME NO.12/2024) ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.SARVAGAN PRABHU.S, Advocate For Respondent : Mr.S.MANIKANDAN, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. PRAYER:

FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN CRIME NO.12 OF 2024 ON THE FILE OF THE RESPONDENT POLICE.

1/4

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners/A4, A6, A10 & A15, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 342, 352, 354A, 302 and 506(2) of IPC and Section 4 of TN Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, in Crime No.12 of 2024, seek anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that there was a dispute between the parties with regard to removal of the caste name in the temple, due to which, the accused trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant and attacked the defacto complainant and her husband with deadly weapons. Thereby, the defacto complainant's husband lost his life. Hence, the case. 3.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and the entire allegation is only against A1 to A3 and the petitioner has raised a noise against the deceased family by calling their caste name and except this allegation, no other allegation was made against him. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

2/4

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) submitted that earlier, the deceased was attacked by A1 to A3 and thereby, the deceased made a complaint before the respondent police and the respondent police registered a case against the petitioners under Section 307 of IPC. Thereafter, the petitioners' family members attacked the deceased son again and the same was questioned by the deceased. Thereby, the petitioners and other accused joined together and attacked the deceased indiscriminately. However, he strongly opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5.Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the allegation levelled against the petitioners is very serious in nature, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 6.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. sd/- 19/03/2024 / TRUE COPY / /03/2024 Sub-Assistant Registrar ( C.S. I / II / III / IV ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

SJI TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE SEMPATTI POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.

3/4

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

+1 CC to M/s.S.SARVAGAN PRABHU, Advocate ( SR-3341[I] dated 19/03/2024 )

ORDER

IN Date :19/03/2024 SS/GS/SAR- /22/03/2024/4P/4C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 4/4