Dismissed

Thanga Manoharan v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC28 Oct 2015CRL OP(MD)/15204/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court dismissed a plea for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. filed by nine accused persons accused of offences including Sections 147, 148, 307 IPC. The court held that due to the accused's bad antecedents, the gravity of the offence, and injuries sustained by the victim, they were not entitled to bail.

What the court decided

AI extract

Thanga Manoharan Vs the Inspector of Police — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

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

¶2

Wednesday, the Twenty Eighth day of October Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT

¶3

The Hon`ble Mr Justice K.KALYANASUNDARAM

¶4

CRL OP(MD) No.15204 of 2015

¶5

1 THANGA MANOHARAN 2 SATHISH 3 AADHI RAJESH 4 BALA 5 PARI ALIAS KARTHICK, 6 MANICKAM 7 ARUN ALIAS MANNASU 8 AJEESH 9 ELANGO ... PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED 1 TO 9 Vs

¶6

THE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE PATTUKOTTAI POLICE STATION, THANJAVUR DISTRICT. (CRIME NO.536/2015) ... RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT VAIDHIYANATHAN ... INTERVENOR/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT

¶7

For Petitioner : M/S.VEERA KATHIRAVAN Advocate

¶8

For Respondent : MS.S.PRABHA, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side)

¶9

For Intervenor : Mr.N.ANAND for Mr.T.MURUGANANDAM, Advocate

¶10

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

¶11

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶12

The petitioners, who are arrayed as A1 to A9 apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 341, 294(b) and 307 of IPC r/w section 3 of TNPPDL Act, in Crime NO.536 of 2015 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail.

¶13

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 31.07.2015 at 11.15 p.m, when the de-facto complainant was proceeding in his two wheeler, an Innova Car bearing registration No.TN-07-BV-4171 waylaid the de-facto complainant and A1 got down from the Car and at the instigation of A1, A2 attempted to attack the de-facto complainant with aruval on his head, however, it fell on the hands severing the little finger of the de-facto complainant and A3 attacked him with iron rod and A7 who claims to have been involved in so many cases, attacked the de-facto complainant with wooden log on his head, while A4 demaged the two wheeeler of the de-facto complainant causing loss to the tune of Rs.3,000/-.

¶14

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶15

3.Mr.Veera Kathiravan, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have been falsely

¶16

roped in this case due to inner party dispute; that the occurrence said to have taken place on 31.07.2015 at 11.15 p.m, but the complaint was lodged only on 01.08.2015 at 19.00 hours without giving any explanation for the delay and that on 31.07.2015, there was an inspection by the party Headquarter officials and in-furtherance of the quarrel and differences at the party meeting, the petitioners have been added as accused in this case.

¶17

4.Mr.R.Anand, learned counsel appearing for the intervenor submitted that A1 and A7 are notorious criminals and A1 has engaged A2 to A9, who are hirelings to eliminate the victim due to political vendetta; that the de-facto complainant has specifically stated the overtact against the petitioners and in the brutal attack, the de-facto complainant has lost his little finger and also sustained grievous injuries all over his body and therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for anticipatory bail. It is further contended that the injured was originally given first aid in the local Government Hospital, Pattukottai and Thanjavur Government Hospital and thereafter, he was referred to Madurai Rajaji Government Hospital for better treatment. So there is adelay in lodging the complaint, which will be explained during trial.

¶18

5.The respondent filed a counter affidavit, dated 16.10.2015 stating that A1 has involved in 9 previous cases, including the offences of 324, 326 and 379 of IPC, A4 has involved in 9 previous cases, A7 is involved in 6 previous cases including the offence of 324, 307 and 302 of IPC and A7 and A8 are history sheeted rowdy elements in Pattukkottai town.

¶19

6.The learned Government Advocate(Criminal side) appearing for the respondent opposed granting of anticipatory bail to the petitioners reiterating the objections made by the respondent in the counter affidavit and also submitted that the petitioners are habitual offenders and if they are granted anticipatory bail, they will temper the witnesses and hamper the further investigation in this case.

¶20

7.Considering the bad antecedents of the accused, the gravity of the offence and the injuries sustained by the victim, this court is of the opinion that the petitioners are not entitled for anticipatory bail. Hence, this petition is dismissed.

¶21

/ TRUE COPY /

¶22

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

¶23

¶24

1.THE INSPECOTR OF POLICE, PATTUKOTTAI POLICE SATION, THANJAVUR DISTRICT. 2.THE ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

¶25

+1. CC to M/S.VEERA KATHIRAVAN Advocate SR.No.63074

¶26

+1cc to Mr.T.MURUGANANDAM, Advocate SR.No.63064

¶27

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶28

NS/SKS-RR/SAR II/29.10.2015 : 2P/5C

Thanga Manoharan v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Thanga Manoharan v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Sankar Guru Vs the Inspector of Police

Ramalakshmi Vs the Inspector of Police

Rajkumar Vs State Rep the Inspector of

Muthuraj @ Raj Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Malaiyan Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Ganesan Vs the Inspector of Police