Santhanam v. The Inspector Of Police

CRL OP(MD). No.15055 of 2022 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 03/11/2022 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice A.A.NAKKIRAN CRL OP(MD). No.15055 of 2022 Santhanam ... Petitioner/Accused Rank not known Vs The State represented by The Inspector of Police, Karivalamavanthanallur Police Station, Tenkasi District (Crime No. 316 of 2022).

... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : M/s.Karthick.R.J., Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.M.Vaikkam Karunanithi, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.316 of 2022 on the file of the Respondent police.

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC in Crime No.316 of 2022, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that the de-facto complainant is the mother of the deceased. When the deceased was working in Mill, she had relationship with the petitioner, who is a married person and has two children. When the de-facto complainant came to know about their relationship, she arranged marriage for the deceased. Even then, the petitioner used to call the deceased and disturbed her. On 28.07.2022 at about 10.00 p.m., when the deceased was talking to the petitioner over phone, the de-facto complainant enquired the deceased, she informed that she consumed pesticide. Immediately, the de-facto complainant taken the deceased to Government hospital and further treatment she was taken to Tirunelveli High-Ground Hospital and thereafter, on 03.08.2022, she died. Hence, the complaint.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/2

CRL OP(MD). No.15055 of 2022 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there was a dispute between the petitioners and the victim's family, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and he is innocent and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, he prays for anticipatory bail. 4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) would submit that the de-facto complainant, in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., has specifically implicated the involvement of the petitioner. He would further submit that 10 witnesses have been examined and the investigation is not yet completed. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of this petition.

5.Considering the gravity and nature of the offence and also the fact that the investigation is not yet completed as stated by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) and also taking note of the statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. given by the de-facto complainant implicating the petitioner in this case, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 6.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. sd/- 03/11/2022 / TRUE COPY / /11/2022 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE KARIVALAMAVANTHANALLUR POLICE STATION, TENKASI DISTRICT 2 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.15055 of 2022 Date :03/11/2022 MGJ/TR/SAR IV/10/11/2022/ 2P 3C https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/2