1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Thirteenth day of September Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice R.MALA CRL OP(MD) No.10882 of 2011 V.SARAVANA PERUMAL ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED Vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE THACHANALLUR POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT CR. NO.120 OF 2011 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/.S. T.LAJAPATHI ROY Advocate For 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 and 120(B) of Indian Penal Code in Crime No.120 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seeks bail. 2.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is arrayed as A7 and a case has been registered under Sections 341, 324, 302 and 120(B) of Indian Penal Code against 10 persons and the petitioner's name is not mentioned in FIR. The accused targeted one Velmurugan mistakenly they murdered Subbaiah @ Subbu Konar on 8.3.2011 at 8.30 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. 3.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/ 2 implicated 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. 4.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 of A1, 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. TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THACHANALLUR POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT 2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.10882 of 2011 Date :13/09/2011 TR : 20.09.2011: 2P/3C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/