Ukkirapandian v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 07/07/2023 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice G.ILANGOVAN Ukkorapandian ... Petitioner/Accused No.4 Vs The State, through The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Madurai District.
(Crime No.8 of 2023).
... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.C.Jeganathan, Advocate.
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.8 of 2023 on the file of the Respondent Police ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner/Accused No.4, apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent Police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 195(A), 214 and 1/4
120(b) of IPC, in Crime No.8 of 2023 on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that there was previous dispute between the defacto complainant and one Vasanthi, who is working as Police. Due to the same, on her instruction, other Police persons, one Advocate threatened the defacto complainant to withdraw the complaint and also they paid Rs.5,00,000/- to him. Hence, the complaint.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent and on reading of the complaint, there is no specific allegation made against this petitioner.
4. The first application that was filed by the petitioner seeking anticipatory bail was dismissed by this Court on 02.06.2023, stating that serious allegation made against this petitioner. The second petition had filed by the petitioner seeking very same relief stating that even as per the allegation is made in the First Information Report, no allegation has been made against the petitoner and that was was also dismissed by this Court stating that there is no change of circumstances.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that subsequent to the above said allegations, when enquiry was undertaken, this petitioner along with co-accused alleged to have threatened the defacto complainant, L.W.1 and L.W.2 to 2/4
withdraw the complaint and not to give any evidence as against the accused persons.
6. Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that no allegation has been made against the petitioner in the above said First Information Report, considering the submission made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the petitioner and co-accused threatened the defacto complainant, if the petitioner is released on anticipatory bail, he may tamper the evidence and hamper enquiry will be undertaken by the respondent. Hence, I find no merit in this petition. Hence, this anticipatory bail petition deserves dismissal and accordingly dismissed.
sd/- 07/07/2023 / TRUE COPY / /08/2023 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
INDU TO THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH ,MADURAI DISTRICT.
3/4
THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.12410 of 2023 Date :07/07/2023 PKP/DD/SAR- /07.08.2023/ 4P/ 3C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 4/4