Renganathan @ Murali v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 22/11/2023 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice V. SIVAGNANAM Renganathan @ Murali ... Petitioner/Accused No.18 Vs The Inspector of Police, Keelavalavu Police Station, Melur Taluk Madurai District.

Crime No.158/2012..

... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : M/s.Balakrishnan.M, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.158/2012 on the file of the respondent police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner/A18, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 447,379 of IPC r/w.3(1) of TNPPDL Act @ Sections 447, 379, 420, 430, 434, 465, 467, 468,471,304(ii)r/w.511,109 and 114 of IPC and Sections 3(i)(ii) and 4 of TNPPDL Act, 1992 and Sections 6,3(a) and 4(a) of Explosives Substances Act, 1908 rw/.120(b) of IPC in Crime No.158 of 2012 on the file 1/4

of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that A1 is the partnership firm in the name and style of Om Sri Granites having Head Office at Chennai. The second accused is the Managing Director and the accused 3,4,5 and 6 are the partners of the firm. A7 is the power of attorney of A1 and A2 for the purpose of running firm and A8,9,10 are the Contractors who have made agreement with the firm to quarry the granite hence the case.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and a false case has been foisted against him. He would further submit that the petitioner is arrayed as A18 in Crime No. 158 of 2012 on the file of the respondent police. He would further submit that the investigation has been completed and the case was taken on file in PRC No.3 of 2020 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Melur. Therefore custodial interrogation of the petitioner does not required, hence he seeks anticipatory to the petitioner. 4.The learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that the petitioner involved in the crime and he is evading arrest. He would further submit that though final report has been filed considering the serious nature of offence levelled against the petitioner he objected to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

2/4

5. On perusal of the records it is found that the petitioner is arrayed as A18 in Crime No. 158 of 2012 on the file of the respondent police. In this case there are totally 19 accused. A1 owned granite. The respondent has prosecuted the other accused for the offences under Sections 447, 379, 420, 430, 434, 465, 467, 468,471,304(ii) r/w.511,109 and 114 of IPC and Sections 3(i)(ii) and 4 of TNPPDL Act, 1992 and Sections 6,3(a) and 4(a) of Explosives Substances Act, 1908 rw/.120(b) of IPC. The petitioner is evading arrest. Though the case was taken on file in PRC No.3 of 2020 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Melur it has to be committed and the case has to be posted for trial. Considering the serious nature of offence levelled against the petitioner and being a economical offence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. Hence the petition stands dismissed.

sd/- 22/11/2023 / TRUE COPY / /12/2023 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S. ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

AAV 3/4

TO

1. The Inspector of Police, Keelavalavu Police Station, Melur Taluk, Madurai District.

2. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.19991 of 2023 Date :22/11/2023 RK/DD (01/12/2023) 4P /3 C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 4/4