Vinoth @ Hariharan v. The Inspector Of Police

CRL OP(MD). No.18295 of 2022 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 14/10/2022 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice A.A.NAKKIRAN CRL OP(MD). No.18295 of 2022 Vinoth @ Hariharan, ... Petitioner/Accused No.1 Vs State Rep.by The Inspector of Police, Thuraiyur Police Station, Trichy District.

Crime No. 300 of 2022.

... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sathya Chidambaram, 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. 300 of 2022 on the file of the respondent Police.

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner/A1, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 395 and 397 of IPC, in Cr.No.300 of 2022, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that when the defacto complainant proceeding towards Chennai by Innova Car bearing Reg.No.TN-21-BL-0882, which is belong to one Baskar, who is the friend of the defacto complainant, the petitioner along with other stopped the Car and taken away the same by threatening him with deadly weapons. Hence, the complaint.

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

CRL OP(MD). No.18295 of 2022 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the driver of the above said Baskar. The above said Baskar received the amount from the petitioner for securing government job. Later, neither secured any job nor paid the amount. Hence, he stopped the Car and picked up quarrel with him to return back the amount. Over which, this false case has been foisted against the petitioner. The stolen Car was recovered on the same day itself. No previous case is pending against the petitioner and there was no injury. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that totally 4 accused are involved in this case. The petitioner was arrayed as A1. A2, A3 & A4 were arrested and still in custody. The petitioner herein is the master mind of the occurrence and the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required. Hence, he strongly opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. sd/- 14/10/2022 / TRUE COPY / /10/2022 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

dss 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 THURAIYUR POLICE STATION, TRICHY DISTRICT.

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

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.18295 of 2022 Date :14/10/2022 PKP/SSS/SAR-1/31.10.2022/2P/3C https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/2