Sekar v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 17/07/2023 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice G.ILANGOVAN 1.Sekar 2.Balu @ Balakrishnan 3.Ramu @ Ramachandran 4.Sathish @ Sathishkumar ... Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4 Vs State represented by The Inspector of Police, Dhadikombu Police Station, Dindigul District.
Crime No.182/ 2023.
... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioners : M/s.S.Vishnuvardhan For Respondent : Mr.S.Manikandan Government Advocate (Crl.side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.182 / 2023 on the file of the respondent police.
ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4, apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 506
(2) of IPC and Section 4 of TNPHW Act in Crime No.182 of 2023 on the file of the 1/3
respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution as per the defacto complainant's version is that her husband was working under these petitioners as a driver. On 24.04.2023, when the defacto complainant went for a travel, petitioners' car bearing registration No.TN 57 BM 3030, met with an accident. None was injured. The vehicle was left in the custody of these petitioners. However, the petitioners were assaulted and demanded payment of Rs.5 Lakhs as compensation for the damage sustained by the defacto complainant/ driver. Because of the issue, the defacto complainant's husband did not attend duty. Thereafter, on 01.05.2023 and on 05.05.2023, at about 4 p.m., the accused persons came to the defacto complainant's house, demanded money, abused and criminally intimidated her husband. They also misbehaved with her. On the basis of the complaint, this petition seeking anticipatory bail is filed.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that on account that the defacto complainant's husband while he was working as a driver took away Rs.23,000/- from him and later refused to return. A complaint was also given, over which C.S.R.No.208 of 2023 has been registered. There is no proper action in the above complaint.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) would submit that it is a case, case in counter. The petitioners are not having good conduct and the first petitioner 2/3
is having four previous cases among which one case was registered under Section 387 of Cr.P.C. The first petitioner is not entitled for the relief of anticipatory bail and so far as other petitioners are concerned, they have no previous case.
5. Considering the antecedents of the petitioners, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. The petitioners shall surrender either before the respondent police or before concerned Court and seek regular bail.
6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. sd/- 17/07/2023 / TRUE COPY / /07/2023 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
PNN TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DHADIKOMBU POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL DISTRICT. 2 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.12251 of 2023 Date :17/07/2023 SA/BUC/SAR. /26.07.2023/3P/3C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023. 3/3