This is a bail petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for three accused persons remanded to judicial custody in a dacoity case involving theft of gold, silver, and cash. The court refused bail, holding the investigation incomplete and noting risks of witness tampering.
Petition for bail dismissed; petitioners to remain in judicial custody.
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.
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction )
Wednesday, the Tenth day of September Two Thousand Fourteen
PRESENT
The Hon`ble Mr Justice K.KALYANASUNDARAM
CRL OP(MD) No.16310 of 2014
1 G.SELVAKUMAR 2 VINOTH 3 NAVEEN RAJA ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1, 4 & 6
STATE REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ABIRAMAM POLICE STATION, RAMNAD DIST, CR.NO.55/2014 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT
For Petitioner : M/S.S.ASAITHAMBI Advocate For Respondent : MR.K.ANBARASAN, Govt.Advocate(Crl.Side)
PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C.
ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-
The petitioners are A1, A4 and A6 and they were surrendered before the court on 21.07.2014, 18.07.2014 23.07.2014 respectively and remanded to judicial custody, for the alleged offences punishable under sections 341, 294(B), 506(ii), 395 and 397 of IPC, in Crime No.55 of 2014, on the file of the respondent and hence, seek bail.
2.The case of the prosecution is that on 05.07.2014, the de-facto complainant purchased gold ornaments and 7-1/2 kgs of silver ornaments at Madurai and while he was returning back to Kamuthi from Madurai in TATA INDICA VISTA Car, nearing Agathariuppu turning in Abiramam to Kamuthi main road, one 207 van blocked the Car and thereafter, some of the accused coming in a two wheeler, slapped the driver and thereafter, the accused armed with Aruval and knife, got into the Car and forcibly removed 800 grams of gold, 7-1/2 kgs of silver and cash of Rs.80,000/and escaped from the scene in a Car bearing registration No.TN-65-W-3132.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that even as per the case of the prosecution, the respondent have recovered 6 kgs of silver from the Car of the de-facto complainant on the next day and the police have recovered the Apache Bike of A1 and gold ornaments from A4, but nothing was recovered from the 2nd petitioner.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the respondent have filed application for custody, after a week and if https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the petitioners are real accused, the respondent police would have immediately filed application for taking custody of the petitioners.
5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners further submitted that if the petitioners have really involved in this case, they would not have left 6 Kgs of silver in the Car of the de-facto complainant.
6.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that on the date of the occurrence, there was a quarrel between the de-facto complainant and the accused, while overtaking of the vehicle and after vehicle of the de-facto complainant met with an accident, some jewels were scattered and it was taken by some accused persons and the petitioners have not involved in this case. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners further submitted that the petitioners have not involved in any previous case.
7.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) submitted that it is a case of highway dacoity and 8th accused Arumugam, who is the Goldsmith knows about the movement of the de-facto complainant and he only informed A6 and thereafter, A6 has mobilised the other accused to commit the docoity.
8.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) submitted that the investigation is not yet over and the respondent are not able to recover Rs.69,000/- and 200 grams of gold, in this case.
9.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) further submitted that if the accused are released on bail, they will temper the witnesses and interfere with the investigation.
10.Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners. Hence, this petition is dismissed.
sd/-
10/09/2014 / TRUE COPY /
Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.)
TO
1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
ORDER
IN
CRL OP(MD) No.16310 of 2014 Date :10/09/2014
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ AA/15.09.2014/2p-5c/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to petitioners accused of highway dacoity and theft.
Whether the co-operation of petitioners in surrendering them justifies granting bail.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
G.SELVAKUMAR
VINOTH
NAVEEN RAJA
STATE REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
K.KALYANASUNDARAM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
