The Madras High Court dismissed a petition for anticipatory bail. The Court found that the petitioners attacked the complainant and his daughter, noting the petitioners had absconded, and characterized their counter-complaint as an afterthought to evade arrest.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
( Criminal Jurisdiction )
Friday, the Twenty Ninth day of April Two Thousand Twenty Two
PRESENT
The Hon`ble Dr Justice G. JAYACHANDRAN
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.10320 of 2022
1 V.SENTHILKUMAR [ PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED ] 2 C.RANJITH KUMAR
Vs
1 THE STATE REP BY ITS [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, C-4, VEERANAM POLICE STATION, SALEM CITY, SALEM, TAMILNADU. (CRIME NO.114/2022)
For Petitioner : M/S.L.K.CHARLES ALEXANDER Advocate
For Respondent : MR.S.SANTHOSH, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side)
PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C.
ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-
The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 324 and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002, in Crime No.114 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondents and Perused the First Information Report.
3.In the petition for anticipatory bail, First Information Report in Crime No.114 of 2022 indicates that the petitioners herein have gone to the house of the defacto complainant and to discuss about conducting the temple festival in which a fight had taken place and the petitioners have attacked the defacto complainant with a PVC pipe. When the daughter of the defacto complainant tried to rescue her father, she was also attacked by using the PVC pipe and she sustained injury.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that it is a case in counter in Crime No.115 of 2022. Infact, the petitioners herein have lodged a complaint to the police against the defacto complainant alleging that the defacto complainant abused the petitioners and their family members in a drunken state and threatened him with dire consequences. When they questioned him, he stated that he will give a false complaint against them that they have attacked his daughter.
5.Referring their complaint, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that it was the defacto complainant, who came to the house of the petitioners in a drunken state and cause nuisance.
6.However, on reading of the counter complaint given by the petitioners herein, it indicates that it is only an afterthought only and they have given the counter complaint against him. The First Information Report in crime No.114 of 2022 against them indicates that these petitioners attacked the defacto complainant and his daughter and in the accident register of the defacto complainant's daughter, it was found that she abused and attacked with PVC pipe.
7.Considering the fact that the petitioners have not only attacked the defacto complainant and his daughter and taking note of the fact that the petitioner is absconding and trying to discord the said offence, the criminal original petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.
-sd/-
29/04/2022
This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned
TRUE COPY
Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104.
TO
1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, C-4, VEERANAM POLICE STATION, SALEM CITY,SALEM, TAMILNADU.
2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.
CC to M/S.L.K.CHARLES ALEXANDER Advocate on payment of necessary charges
CRL OP.10320/2022 Date :29/04/2022
CSK 12/05/2022
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted when the petitioner is accused of attacking a complainant and was found to be absconding.
Whether the petitioners' filing a counter-complaint negates the finding that they filed the counter-complaint only as an afterthought.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
V.SENTHILKUMAR and C.RANJITH KUMAR
THE STATE AND THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
G. JAYACHANDRAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
