P.Sethupathy v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 07/12/2023 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice V. SIVAGNANAM P.Sethupathy ... Petitioner/Accused Vs The Inspector of Police, Natham Police Station, Dindigul District.

Crime No.606 of 2023.

... Respondent/Complainant S.Alagarsamy ... Intervening Petitioner/Defacto Complainant In CRL MP(MD).17064/2023 in CRL OP(MD).21028/2023 For Petitioner :

Mr.P.Rengaraju, Advocate.

For Respondent :

Mr.R.Suresh Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervenor :

Mr.S.Ramakrishnan, Advocate.

PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No.606 of 2023 on the file of the Respondent Police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 324 and 506(ii) of IPC in Crime No.606 1/3

of 2023 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that the father of the petitioner and the defacto complainant are the brothers. The relative of the defacto complainant namely, one Radhakrishnan made a phone call to the defacto complainant and informed that the petitioner abused him and one Meenatchisundaram in filthy language. He immediately rushed to the place and questioned the petitioner. But, the petitioner also abused the defacto complainant and bitten the left ear of him and cut the same. Hence, the complaint.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, he seeks anticipatory bail. 4.The learned counsel for the Intervenor would submit that in the said occurrence, the left ear of the defacto complainant was cut by the petitioner. Now, the defacto complainant has became physically disabled person. He would further submit that the petitioner is not yet arrested and the petitioner made life threat to the defacto complainant demanding to withdraw the present complaint. Hence, he strongly objected to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 5.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent police would submit that the petitioner had bitten the left ear of the defacto complainant 2/3

and cut the same and caused grievous injuries. He would further submit that the investigation is not yet completed.

6.Considering the gravity of the offence this Court is not inclined to grand anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. sd/- 07/12/2023 / TRUE COPY / /01/2024 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.I/II/III/IV) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

DSS TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NATHAM POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.

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

ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.21028 of 2023 Date :07/12/2023 RS/JGB/SAR-(02.01.2024) 3P 3C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 3/3