Rajesh@Rajeshkannan(Ponthu) v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 18/12/2020 PRESENT The Hon'ble Mr.Justice G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN CRL OP(MD). No.15203 of 2020

1. Rajesh @ Rajeshkannan(Ponthu)

2. Manirathinam ... Petitioners/Accused No.2 & 3 Vs The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Thiruppuvanam Police Station, Sivagangai District.

(Crime No. 365/2020). ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioners : Mr.Haroon Rasheed.D.S, Advocate.

For Respondent : Mrs.M.Ananthadevi, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C PRAYER :- For Anticipatory bail in Crime No. 365 of 2020 on the file of respondent police.

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners, who are arrayed as A2 and A3, apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 324 and 307 of IPC, in Crime No.365 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that due to previous enmity, the petitioners said to have attacked the defacto complainant by using sward. Hence, the present complaint.

3.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the injured person has already been discharged from the hospital. Hence, he seek anticipatory bail.

5.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent Police submitted that the injured has already been discharged from the hospital. She further submitted that after committing the said offence, the first petitioner has also involved another case and the same is pending. She further submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is very much required. Hence, she prayed to dismiss this petition.

6.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is very much required, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

7.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.

sd/- 18/12/2020 / TRUE COPY / / /2021 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, THIRUPPUVANAM POLICE STATION, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT.

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

ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.15203 of 2020 Date :18/12/2020 VSG TE/SMA/SAR-IV : 06/01/2021 : 2P/3C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/