MUTHALAGU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was already in prison, committed the offence punishable under Ss. 114, 147, 294(b), 323 and 353 IPC and Sec. 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damages and Loss)Act, 1992 and a case was registered in Cr.No.116 of 2023. Therefore, he seeks bail.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that on 11/6/2023, at about 10.20 pm., the inmates kept in Cell No.5 of the District Prison, Madurai complained that the inmate Vadivelmurugan has a small knife and therefore, search was effected by the Prison officials. However, noting found and subsequently, the inmates of the prison were transferred from one cell to another cell. At that time, wordy quarrel arose between A1 and one of the inmates, namely, Eli Muthin Ahamed, due to the same, A1 and 9 other inmates assaulted the said Eli Muthin Ahamed and also caused damage to the fan, tube-lights of the prison cell. Subsequently, on 12/6/2023, all the 27 prison inmates were transferred to the Central Prison, Madurai and Trichy. At that time, all the inmates refused to cooperate with the prison officials and prevented the official from discharging their duty. Hence, the case.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, he seeks bail to the petitioner.