Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/19164/2021dismissed

Andiyappan v. The Sub Inspector Of Police

2021-12-06Honourable Mr Justice G.Ilangovan2 pages

CRL OP(MD). No.19164 of 2021 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 06/12/2021 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice G.ILANGOVAN CRL OP(MD). No.19164 of 2021 Andiyappan ... Petitioner/Sole Accused Vs The State rep.by, The Sub Inspector of Police, Kulasekarapattinam Police Station, Thoothukudi District.

Crime No.269 of 2021. ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.S.Muniyandi, Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.S.S.Madhavan, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL UNDER SEC.438 OF CR.P.C PRAYER :-For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.269 of 2021 on the file of the Respondent Police.

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner/Sole Accused, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 506(i), 379(NP) IPC and section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002, in Crime No.269 of 2021, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 13.10.2021, the petitioner had abused the defacto complainant with filthy language, assaulted him. In the occurrence, the chain of the defacto complainant was also found missing. Hence, the complaint. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent and not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that the investigation is not yet completed and property not yet recovered.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1/2

CRL OP(MD). No.19164 of 2021 5.On reading of the First Information Report shows that the defacto complainant and the petitioner are neighbours, because the petitioner used to watch TV in high volume, there was dispute between the parties. When this was questioned by the defacto complainant, she was physically abused and assaulted by the petitioner. During the occurrence, the 3.5 sovereigns of gold chain of the defacto complainant was snatched away by the petitioner. 6.However, the counsel for the petitioner would submit that the complaint does not disclose the contents under Section 379 IPC. Whether it is exaggerated by the defacto complainant or not, it is a matter for investigation.

7.Considering the seriousness and gravity of offence alleged against the petitioner, the alleged chain was not yet recovered by the prosecution, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

8.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. sd/- 06/12/2021 / 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 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KULASEKARAPATTINAM POLICE STATION, THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT.

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

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.19164 of 2021 Date :06/12/2021 PNM MK/PN/SAR.III/09.12.2021/2P/3C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2/2