BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Twenty Second day of November Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH CRL OP(MD) No.14536 of 2011 1. PETCHIMUTHU 2. VEERAPANDI ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.6 & 7 Vs THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE K. PUDUR POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT. CR.NO. 1305/2011 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT R.SUBBURAMAN ... INTERVENOR For Petitioner : M/S. S.MUNIYANDI Advocate For Respondent : MR.K.S.DURAI PANDIAN, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) For Intervenor : MR.D.SHANMUGARAJA SETHUPATHY, ADVOCATE PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 364 I.P.C @ 147, 120(b), 323, 365, 506(ii) and 365 I.P.C. and hence, seek anticipatory bail. 2.Heard Mr.S.Muniyandi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.D.Shanmugaraja, learned counsel for the intervenor and Mr.K.S.Durai Pandian learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl.side) appearing for the state. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are ranked as A6 and A7 and their names are not found in the F.I.R. But however, the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case and they have not participated in the alleged occurrence. He would further submit in his argument that the petitioners are young persons and they are ready to abide any conditions likely to be imposed by this Court. 4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl.side) would submit in his argument that the petitioners have also indulged in the said offence and there was a close circuit camera put up in TV which is being fixed in the lodge which proves that the presence of the petitioners along with other accused whose names were found in the F.I.R and after investigation, the petitioners are found to have involved in the said crime and it is a serious crime against the society and hence, anticipatory bail may be granted to the petitioners. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5.The learned counsel appearing for the intervenor has also supported the argument of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl.side) and would submit that the de-facto complainant's son was abducted by the petitioners along with other accused and therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for anticipatory bail. 6.Considering the submission made by both sides, I could see that the the investigation is still pending and the petitioners are said to have not participated in the said offence but it has to be decided during the investigation as to whether there was an image of the petitioners found in the camera while they were entering into the lodge for the purpose of commission of the crime. However, all these things have to be seen at the conclusion of the investigation and therefore, this Court does not find any material to grant anticipatory bail in favour of the petitioners. Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed. sd/- 22/11/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE K.PUDUR POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT. 2. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1. CC to M/S. D.SHANMUGARAJA SETHUPATHI Advocate SR.No.41079 SR : 25.11.2011 : 2P/4C ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.14536 of 2011 Date :22/11/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/