V.SARAVANA PERUMAL v. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE THACHANALLUR POLICE STATION
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
The petition is dismissed
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 438
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 120(B), 302, 324, 341
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. Considering the rival submissions made by both sides, the alleged occurrence has been taken place on 8.3.2011 and at 9.15 p.m., complaint has been given on the same day and during the investigation, after arrest ofA1, the petitioner name was implicated and in that…
Judgment
Cause title
1BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT( Criminal Jurisdiction )Tuesday, the Thirteenth day of September Two Thousand ElevenPRESENTThe Hon`ble Ms.Justice R.MALACRL OP(MD) No.10882 of 2011V.SARAVANA PERUMAL ... PETITIONER
/ACCUSED VsTHE INSPECTOR OF POLICE THACHANALLUR POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT CR. NO.120 OF 2011
RESPONDENT
/COMPLAINANTFor Petitioner : M/.S. T.LAJAPATHI ROY AdvocateFor Respondent : MR. A.RAMAR, Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C.
ORDER :
The Court Made the following order :-The petitioner/A7 apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 341, 324, 302 and120(B) of Indian Penal Code in Crime No.120 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seeks bail.
The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is arrayed as A7 and a case has been registered under Sections341, 324, 302 and 120(B) of Indian Penal Code against 10 persons and thepetitioner's name is not mentioned in FIR. The accused targeted oneVelmurugan mistakenly they murdered Subbaiah @ Subbu Konar on 8.3.2011 at8.30 p.m and the overt act attributed against the petitioner is that he has promised to give all financial and professional help to the accused and also he promised to give Rs.10,000/- and he is nothing to do with the commission of offence and hence, he come forward with the application and he prays for enlargement on bail.
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl.side) would submit that the alleged occurrence has been taken place on 8.3.2011 and initially, case has been registered against three persons and the accused name has not been found in FIR and on the basis of confession given by A1, the petitioner was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2implicated and investigation is going on and eight accused were already arrested and remanded to judicial custody and no accused was enlarged on bail and one accused is absconding and hence, he prays for dismissal of this application.
Operative part
Considering the rival submissions made by both sides, the alleged occurrence has been taken place on 8.3.2011 and at 9.15 p.m., complaint has been given on the same day and during the investigation, after arrest ofA1, the petitioner name was implicated and in that it was stated that he is promised to render all help including financial and professional help and then he paid Rs.10,000/- and investigation is going on and eight accused were already arrested and remanded to judicial custody and one accused is yet to be arrested and he is absconded. Considering the gravity of the offence, if the petitioner is enlarged on anticipatory bail, he will tamper the witnesses and abscond from the jurisdiction, and hence, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner and I do not find any merits in this application. The petition is dismissed. sd/- 13/09/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THACHANALLUR POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTORMADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.10882 of 2011 Date :13/09/2011TR : 20.09.2011: 2P/3C
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The petition is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 120(B), 302, 324, 341.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.