Thasaratha Raman v. The Sub Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 13/12/2023 PRESENT The Honourable Mr.Justice V.SIVAGNANAM

1. Thasaratha Raman.P

2. P Lingapandi ... Petitioners/A13 & A20 Vs The Sub Inspector of Police, Jeyamangalam Police Station, Theni District.

Crime No. 261 of 2023.

... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : M/s. Ramadass.P, Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.Rms.Sethuraman, Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No. 261 of 2023 on the file of the respondent Police.

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners/A13 and A20, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 1/3

342, 506(ii), 302 and 212 IPC in Crime No.261 of 2023 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that there is an oral dispute between the petitioner's side and the defacto complainant's side with regard to the Jeyamangalam, Mariamman Temple. When the petitioner went to the said temple on 11.10.2023, the oral dispute became a biggest dispute. Then, A1 and A2 attacked one Irulappan with deadly weapons along with A5 and A8 and few others and the said Irulappan died. Hence, the case.

3.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and his name has been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that based on the confession of the first accused, the petitioner has been implicated in this case. Hence, he prays for anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent Police would submit that the name of the petitioner has been stated by the defacto complainant in his further statement. He would further submit that the investigation of the case is pending and hence, he strongly opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 2/3

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the serious nature of allegations made against the petitioner and considering the fact that the petitioner has also participated in the said occurrence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. sd/- 13/12/2023 / TRUE COPY / /12/2023 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S. ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

SKN TO 1 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE JEYAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, THENI DISTRICT.

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

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.22452 of 2023 Date :13/12/2023 SS/DD/SAR- /21/12/2023/3P/3C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 3/3