CRL OP(MD)/18004/2017 of VEERAIYAN, Vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, on 28 December 2017

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT( Criminal Jurisdiction )

Thursday, the Twenty Eighth day of December Two Thousand SeventeenPRESENT

The Hon`ble Mr Justice S.VAIDYANATHAN

CRL OP(MD) No.18004 of 2017

VEERAIYAN ... PETITIONER /ACCUSED NO NOT KNOWN

Vs

1 STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

THANJAVUR TALUK POLICE STATION, THANJAVUR.... 1[st] RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT2 VINAYAGARAMAN... 2[nd] RESPONDENT/ DEFACTO COMPLAINANT

For Petitioner : M/S.S.E.MONICA VINCENT, AdvocateFor Respondent : M/S.K.ANBARASAN, Government Advocate(Crl.Side)

PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C.

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- Apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police forthe alleged offences punishable under Sections 457 and 302 IPC inCrime No.455 of 2017 on the file of the first respondent police, thepetitioner has come forward with this petition seeking anticipatorybail.

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and thelearned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the firstrespondent police.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner snatchedthe chain of the mother of the defacto complainant and the villagerscaught hold A2 and A3, who accompanied the petitioner and petitioneris the prime culprit.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that thepetitioner is innocent and has not committed any such offence asalleged by the prosecution and the case has been foisted against thepetitioner as a counter blast to the Writ Petition filed by himbefore this Court in W.P.(MD) No.21211 of 2017 to take actionagainst the police.

5. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that A2https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/and A3 are still in custody and the petitioner is the prime culprit,who is having 18 previous cases.

6. Though the petitioner has filed W.P.(MD) No.21211 of 2017 totake action against the police, the same cannot be a ground forgranting anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Further, taking noteof the fact that the petitioner has bad antecedents and also thefact that the petitioner is alleged to have involved in a seriousoffence, this Court is of the view that custodial interrogation ofthe petitioner is necessary in this case and therefore, this Courtis not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to him.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

sd/-

28/12/2017

/ TRUE COPY /

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO

1. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THANJAVUR TALUK POLICE STATION, THANJAVUR.

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