P.Thiruthamailarasu v. The Sub Inspector Of Police

CRL OP(MD).No.15329 of 2022 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 14/09/2022 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mrs.Justice R.THARANI CRL OP(MD).No.15329 of 2022 P.Thiruthamilarasu ... Petitioner/Sole Accused Vs The State represented by The Sub-Inspector of Police, ST Kulam, Kanyakumari District.

in Crime No.135 of 2022.

... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : M/s.B.Vinothbalan Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.M.Vaikkam Karunanithi Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervenor : M/s.N.Dilip Kumar, Advocate PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.135 of 2022 on the file of the Respondent Police.

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner/ Accused Rank not known, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 506(i) and 379 of IPC, in Crime No.135 of 2022, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner availed a loan from the Tamil Nadu mercantile Bank, Rajakamangalam Branch with collateral security of two properties. Since the petitioner failed to repay the same, the Bank filed a case before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagercoil in Cr.M.P.No.2291 of 2020, for physical possession and an conditional order was passed in favour of the Bank. In the meanwhile, the petitioner has trespassed into the property and broke open the gate of the property which was in the possession of the bank. Hence,a complaint has been filed before the Thenthamaraikulam police station in CSR No.293 of 2022 and a case in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/2

CRL OP(MD).No.15329 of 2022 W.P.(MD)No.15593 of 2022 has been filed before this Court and this Court has passed an conditional order. The petitioner has complied the condition and hence the defacto complainant herein and one Ravichandran went to the petitioner's house to hand over the key of one of the property. At that time, the petitioner scolded them in filthy language and threatened them with dire consequences and snatched Rs.5,200/-. Hence the complaint.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He has been falsely implicated in this case. It was the defacto complainant who quarrelled with the petitioner and gave a false complaint and pray the petitioner to be released on anticipatory bail.

4.The learned Government Advocate(Crl.side) submitted that the accused has attacked the defacto complainant and snatched money from him. The petitioner is having one previous case of similar nature and pray the petition to be dismissed.

5.Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, considering the nature of the offence this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6.Accordingly, this Criminal Original petition is dismissed. sd/- 14/09/2022 / TRUE COPY / /09/2022 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO

1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ST KULAM, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT.

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

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.15329 of 2022 Date :14/09/2022 pnn USK/VR/SAR-II/19.09.2022/2P/3C https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/2