Advocates:
['M/s Poornachandran S', '', 'Rajalakshmi Poornachandran', 'Public Prosecutor']

Crl.OP(MD)No.12604 of 2022

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

Dated: 12/08/2022

PRESENT

The Hon'ble Mr.Justice G.ILANGOVAN

Crl.OP(MD)No.12604 of 2022

1.Nagarajan

2.Maheshswaran ... Petitioners/2^nd and 4^th Accused

Vs.

State rep. By

The Inspector of Police,

Virudhunagar Rural Police Station,

Virudhunagar District.

(Crime No.117 of 2022)

... Respondent/Complainant

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Poornachandran, Advocate.

For 1^st Respondent : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh

Government Advocate(Criminal side)

For Intervenor

: Mr.Rajeshkumar.R, Advocate.

PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C

PRAYER:-For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.117 of 2022 on the file of

the Respondent Police.

ORDER : The Court made the following order:-

The petitioners, who are arrayed as A2 and A4 apprehending

arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences

punishable under sections 294(b), 324 and 506(ii) IPC, in Crime

No.117 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police, seek

anticipatory bail.

2.The petitioner is facing the charges for the offences under

sections 294(b), 324 and 506(ii) IPC.

3.Heard both sides.

4.It has been brought to the notice of this court that already

interim protection was granted to the petitioners namely A2 and A4.

But A2 committed murder of one Saraswathi, over which, a case in

Crime No.131 of 2022 was registered on 27/07/2022.

5.This matter was heard by me on more than one occasions. At

that time, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners by

producing photographs has contended that only the de-facto

complainant and other persons came to the disputed property with

aruval and under the guise of making a compromise made a life

1/3

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.12604 of 2022

threat. On seeing the photographs, by granting interim protection

to both the accused, this court directed the petitioners as well as

de-facto complainant to appear before the respondent police to

complete the enquiry with regard to the above said issue. It appears

that during the pendency of the enquiry, heinous offence of murder

has been committed by A2 by taking advantage of the interim

protection given by this court. So the learned counsel appearing for

the petitioners sought permission of this court to not press the

petition by A2.

6.Even though the matter has become infructuous, in so far as

the A2 is concerned, the conduct must also be placed on record.

7.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would

submit that the 2^nd petitioner/A4 is noway connected with the above

said murder and he is not involved, either directly or indirectly in

the murder case.

8.The learned counsel appearing for the intervenor would submit

that the involvement of the 2^nd petitioner/A4 is also suspected and

they are also going to take steps to investigate the matter, by

impleading the first petitioner as an accused.

9.Now whatever it may be, now the concern of this court is that

by taking advantage of the interim protection order, such a heinous

crime has been committed. This court cannot take it lightly as if A1

is not involved in the offence of murder. Interim protection was

granted only for the limited purpose of knowing ground situation on

the date of the alleged occurrence.

10.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) would submit

that only for the purpose of removing the knot in the thatched

house, aruval was provided by the de-factco complainant themselves.

Only to ascertain the truth, the above said direction was made.

11.Moreover reading of the FIR shows that there is continuous

trouble between the parties over the land issue, in respect of which

also, the offence of murder has been committed. So the petitioners

are not all entitled for the discretionary relief of anticipatory

bail.

12.In the result,