R.S.Murugan v. State by

CRL. O.P. No.12720 of 2016

S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.

Apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 403, 408, 414 r/w.34 IPC in Crime No.83 of 2016 on the file of the respondent police, the petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking anticipatory bail.

1. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with other accused is alleged to have looted 422 grams of jewels from the owner of the property and sold the same.

1. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any such offence and on the basis of the confession of the co-accused, he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the coaccused has already been granted bail.

1. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) vehemently opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner on the ground that out 422 grams of stolen jewels only 276 grams have been recovered from the co-accused and the remaining jewels need to be recovered in this case.

1. The release of the co-accused on bail cannot be a ground for release of the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Taking note of the fact that the balance of stolen jewels have to be recovered in this case, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner and the petition is dismissed.

vrc