Senthil Kumar @ Senthil v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 25/09/2020 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice V.BHARATHIDASAN 1.SENTHIL KUMAR @ SENTHIL 2.NAGOOR KANI ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.1 & 2 VS STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRUCHULI POLICE STATION, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT.
(CRIME NO. 339 OF 2020).
... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/s.V.Angusamy, Advocate.
For Respondent : M/s.S.E.Veronica Vincent, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.339 of 2020 on the file of the Respondent Police.
ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners who are arrayed as A-1 & A-2 apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under sections 147, 353, 341, 427 & 506(i) of IPC, in Crime No.339 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is Zonal Deputy Thasildar of Thiruchuli. The allegation is that the petitioners said to have illegally transported and quarrying river sand in lorry. The defacto complainant has stopped the lorry and also informed the same to the concerned Thasildar. In the meantime, the petitioners said to have pushed the defacto complainant and also 1/3
caused damage to his bike and throw it into the channel and escaped from the scene of occurrence. Hence, a complaint has been registered.
3. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (criminal side).
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, he seeks anticipatory bail.
5. The learned Government Advocate (criminal side)appearing for the respondent police would submit that on the date of inspection the petitioners said to have carrying river sand without valid permission. He would further submit that the defacto complainant has stopped the vehicle and inform the same to the concerned Tahsildar and the petitioners not only assaulted the defacto complainant and also damaged his two-wheeler and throw it into the channel and also escaped from the scene of occurrence. He would further submit that there are three previous cases pending against A-1.
6. Taking note of the submission of the learned Government Advocate (criminal side) the petitioners prevented the Tashildar from discharging his public duty and also damaged his two-wheeler and throw it into the channel. Considering the fact that there are three previous cases pending against A-1, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail.
7. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.
sd/- 25/09/2020 / TRUE COPY / / /2020 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRUCHULI POLICE STATION, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT.
2/3
2 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.10317 of 2020 Date :25/09/2020 ksa JM/VR/SAR II/05.10.2020/3P/3C 3/3