Sathish Kumar @ Satheesh v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 10/11/2022 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice A.A.NAKKIRAN Sathish Kumar @ Satheesh ... Petitioner/Accused No.2 Vs The State rep.by, The Inspector of Police, Puliangudi Police Station, Puliangudi, Tenkasi District.
in Crime No.456/2022 ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : M/s.Sakthikumaran T, Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr.M.Muthumanikkam, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.456/2022 on the file of the Respondent Police.
ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner/2nd Accused, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 353, 307 and 506(ii) of IPC in Crime No.456 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police, seeks antcipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that when the defacto complainant, namely, Mr.Alexmenan, Sub Inspector of Police, Puliangudi Police Station along with other police personal were on vehicle checking near Puliangudi Bus Stand, they received message from Chokkampatti Police Station requesting to intercept and stop the Innova Car bearing Registration No.TN-02-AH-0697, which was alleged to have caused accident at Vamsaviruthi Nagar within Chokkampatti police station limit, causing grievous hurt to three person. When the defacto complainant stopped the said car, the 1/3
petitioner, who was on the left side seat of the driver seat, instructed the driver Karthick not to stop the car and tried to kill the police by hitting the car, but they left the spot and escaped. Thereafter, they chased the Innova Car and on intercepting the car, the driver Karthick was caught and the petitioner got down from the car and escaped. Hence, the complaint.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that this is only an accident. Since the deceased is the police official, they registered two cases against the petitioner for the very same occurrence. He would further submit that only on the fear of the accident against the police persons, the petitioner and his driver did not stop the car and moved from there. The petitioner is an innocent person and he did not commit any offence as alleged by the prosecution and hence, he may be granted anticipatory bail. 4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent police would submit that the petitioner along with the first accused travelled a car in a drunken mode and the first accused had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused accident against the Police Officials.
Out of the injured persons, one person died on the spot. He would further submit that investigation in this case is at the initial stage and custodial interrogation of the petitioner is very much necessary. Hence, he opposed for grant of bail to the petitioner. Heinous 5.Considering the seriousness and gravity of the offence committed by the petitioner, the objection raised by the Prosecution and also the fact that the investigation is at the initial stage and custodial interrogation of the petitioner is very much necessary in this case, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
6.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. sd/- 10/11/2022 / TRUE COPY / /11/2022 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
cp TO 1.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PULIANGUDI POLICE STATION, PULIANGUDI, TENKASI DISTRICT.
2/3
2. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
+1 CC to M/s.T.SAKTHI KUMARAN, Advocate ( SR-12814[I] dated 10/11/2022 )
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.18722 of 2022 Date :10/11/2022 RK/BUC/SAR-2 (28/11/2022) 3P/4C 3/3