R.Muthuselvam v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 14/09/2023 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice G.ILANGOVAN R.Muthuselvam, ... Petitioner/Accused Rank Not Known Vs State Rep.by The Inspector of Police, Thandikudi Police Station Dindigul District.

Crime No.107 of 2023..

... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : M/s.Dinesh.K.,Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.S.Manikandan, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.107 of 2023 on the file of the respondent police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner/Accused, apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 341, 294(b), 397 and 506(ii) of IPC in 1/4

Crime No.107 of 2023, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.The defacto complainant in his complaint has stated that on 22.06.2023, along with his friend namely Vignesh, driver Manoj, they went to Kodaikanal. At that time, they are having Rs.2 lakhs in a bag. They stayed in the Kodaikanal and returned back on 23.06.2023 at about 01.00 a.m. in the early morning. When they were nearing Moondrumavadi junction, a Car which following them, intercepted their Car. About 5 persons alighted from the above said Car. They kidnapped the defacto complainant parties, along with the bag brought by them. Three persons got into the defacto complainant's Car. At the knife point, they were taken to Theni. Near Periyakulam road, they robbed the Rs.2 Lakhs from them. The defacto complainant's ATM card was also snatched from him. Rs.

1 Lakh rupee was also withdrawn from the Bank account through ATM. About Rs.1.50 lakhs was also transferred to his account by his Manager. 3 sovereigns of gold jewels were also snatched at the knife point. They have also Criminally intimidated the defacto complainant parties. Over which, the case has been registered.

3.During the course of investigation, involvement of this petitioner came to light. Seeking anticipatory bail this petition has been filed on the ground that there is a delay of 20 days in lodging the complaint. According to him, the date of occurrence stated to be on 23.06.2023. But the complaint was lodged on 19.07.2023. Because of 2/4

the business motive, the petitioner was wrongly roped in this case. According to him, he was not present in the place of occurrence, even as per the case of defacto complainant in the FIR.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) has relied on the confession given by the co-accused stating that he was also accompanied the co-accused in that area, when they following the defacto complainant's Car, intercepted by them and also snatched the above said gold chain from the defacto complainant. 5.Even though it has been stated that because of the business enmity, this petitioner was roped in and there was a long delay in lodging the complaint, considering the manner, in which, the offence said to have been committed, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 6.Accordingly, this criminal original petition stands dismissed. sd/- 14/09/2023 / TRUE COPY / /10 /2023 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TM TO THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE THANDIKUDI POLICE STATION DINDIGUL DISTRICT.

3/4

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

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.16705 of 2023 Date :14/09/2023 PKP/DD/SAR- /19.10.2023/ 4P/3 C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 4/4