Madras High Court

CRL OP(MD)/17806/2017 of BALAMURUGAN Vs THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, on 28 December 2017

BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Twenty Eighth day of December Two Thousand Seventeen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice S.VAIDYANATHAN CRL OP(MD) No.17806 of 2017 1 BALAMURUGAN 2 ARUMUGAM ... PETITIONERS/ A -1 & A2 Vs STATE REP. BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF

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

Thursday, the Twenty Eighth day of December Two Thousand Seventeen PRESENT

The Hon`ble Mr Justice S.VAIDYANATHAN

CRL OP(MD) No.17806 of 2017

1 BALAMURUGAN 2 ARUMUGAM ... PETITIONERS/A-1 & A2

Vs

STATE REP. BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, JEYAMANGALAM POLICE STATION,THENI DISTRICT.

(CR.NO.306 OF 2017) ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

For Petitioner : Mr.A.K.MANICKAM Advocate For Respondent : Mr.K.ANBARASAN, Government Advocate (Crl.side)

PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C.

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners/A1 & A2, who were arrested on 12.12.2017and remanded to judicial custody on 13.12.2017 for the offencespunishable under Sections 341, 324 and 307 IPC in Crime No.306 of2017 on the file of the respondent police, seek bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that due to previousennmity, the petitioners along with other accused persons are saidto have attacked the father of the defacto complainant and causedinjury to him, which resulted in registration of the present case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submittedthat the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case andthey are ready to abide by any conditions being imposed by thisCourt.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) has stronglyobjected to the grant of bail, contending that the investigation ofthe case is at the initial stage and if the petitioners/accused arelet out on bail, there is every possibility of the accused tamperingthe witnesses/evidences and hampering the investigation.https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Page 1 of 2

5. Taking into consideration the serious nature of theallegations levelled against these petitioners and the fact thatthey were taken into custody only from 13.12.2017, this Court is notinclined to grant the relief as prayed for by the petitioners.

6. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition standsdismissed accordingly.

sd/-

28/12/2017

/ TRUE COPY /

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

TO

1 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,JEYAMANGALAM POLICE STATION,THENI DISTRICT, 2 THE SUPERINTENDENT

CENTRAL POLICE, MADURAI

3 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI

ORDER

IN

CRL OP(MD) No.17806 of 2017

Date :28/12/2017

ar

SH/CM-VR/SAR-2:03.01.2018:2p/4c

Page 2 of 2

Loading citations and judicial treatment…

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead