M. Ranjith v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 12/12/2022 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA CRL OP(MD). No.21880 of 2022 M. Ranjith ... Petitioner/Sole Accused Vs State rep.by The Inspector of Police, Puliyampatti Police Station, Tuticorin District, Ottapidaram Taluk.

(Crime No.83/2022).

... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : M/s. Banuprasath.P, Advocate For Respondent : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.439 of Cr.P.C.

PRAYER :- For Bail in Crime No.83/2022 on the file of the Respondent Police.

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner/Accused, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 24.11.2022, for the offence punishable under Sections 294(b), 324, 307, 506(ii) of I.P.C in Crime No. 83 of 2022, on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail. 2.The case of the prosecution as per the defacto complainant is that since the petitioner thinking that the defacto complainant is the root cause for detaining him under Act 14, there was a dispute between them, over which, on 24.11.2022 at 06.00PM, the petitioner

had abused the defacto complainant with filthy language and assaulted him. When the defacto complainant's son, intervened in the occurrence, he was also assaulted by the petitioner. Both had sustained grievous injuries. Hence, the complaint. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and since there was a election motive between the parties, he has been falsely implicated in this case. He is noway connected with the offence. The petitioner is in judicial custody from 24.11.2022. Hence, prays to release the petitioner on bail.

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioner is a habitual offender, who is having six previous cases at his credit and also he was detained under Act 14. Since the petitioner believed that the defacto complainant is the reason for detaining him under Act 14, this occurrence took place, in which, the victims sustained grievous injuries. The occurrence had taken place only on 24.11.2022, the investigation is not yet completed. Hence, vehemently oppose to release the petitioner on bail.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court.

6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the gravity of the offence and the nascent stage of investigation and also considering the previous bad antecedents of the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

7. In view of the above, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.

Sd/- 12/12/2022 / TRUE COPY / /12/2022 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.II) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

PNM

TO

1. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PULIYAMPATTI POLICE STATION, TUTICORIN DISTRICT, OTTAPIDARAM TALUK.

2. THE OFFICER INCHARGE, DISTRICT PRISON PERURANI, TUTICORIN.

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

+1. CC to M/S. BANUPRASATH.P Advocate SR.No.14671

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.21880 of 2022 Date :12/12/2022 SP/VR/SAR II/22/12/2022/3P/5C