Dismissed

Saranraj@Vellai, Aged 24 Years v. State by

Madras HC23 Aug 2018CRL OP/16452/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal original petition sought anticipatory bail for the petitioner, an accused alleged to be a driver whose car was found to transport stolen idols. The bench considered the rival submissions regarding the petitioner's knowledge and presence. Rejecting the bail plea, the court held that granting bail might hamper witnesses and tamper with evidence.

What did the court decide?

The petition for anticipatory bail was dismissed. The petitioner is disentitled to any relief.

Saranraj@Vellai, Aged 24 Years Vs State by — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Twenty Third day of August Two Thousand Eighteen PRESENT The Honble Mr Justice R. MAHADEVAN and The Honble Mr Justice P.D.AUDIKESAVALU CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.16452 of 2018

¶3

SARANRAJ @ VELLAI [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ] Vs STATE BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, AMBUR TALUK POLICE STATION, VELLORE DISTRICT. CR.NO.193 OF 2018.

¶4

For Petitioner : M/S.A.PANNEER SELVAM Advocate

¶5

For Respondent : M/S.KIRTHIC KAMAL, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side)

¶6

PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶7

Apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police in connection with the case in Crime No.193 of 2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 457(2), 380(2), 411(2), 414, 201 and 120-B IPC, the petitioner has filed this Criminal Original Petition seeking anticipatory bail.

¶8

2.It is the case of the prosecution that on 06.05.2018 about 3.00pm, the police personnel of Pernampet Police Station, conducted a raid near the Forest Range Office, Pernampet and found three idols from a car bearing Regn.No.TN09 AW 3339, which was parked before the Forest Office, Pernampet and during the course of enquiry, it came to light that on 08.10.2017, the petitioner and other accused had stolen those idols from Poomalai Murugan Temple at Vellore District and transported the same in the aforesaid car, which resulted in the registration of the present case.

¶9

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is only a driver of the aforesaid car and he does not know the alleged offence committed by the accused. The learned counsel further submitted that he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, the learned counsel prayed for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ anticipatory bail in favour of the petitioner.

¶10

4.Stoutly opposing the relief sought in this petition, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), on instructions, submitted that the petitioner and other accused have stolen the idols of Murugar, Deivayanai and Valli belonging to Poomalai Murugan Temple and the said idols were subsequently, recovered from the aforesaid car driven by the petitioner herein. According to the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), the petitioner is directly involved in the commission of the offence and he is still in abscondence and hence, his presence is required for completion of investigation.

¶11

5.This Court considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials on record.

¶12

6.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the rival submissions and also taking note of the fact that the petitioner is the driver of the car, in which, the stolen idols were recovered and he was earlier in possession of the said idols, this Court is of the view that there is a chance of hampering the witnesses and tampering the evidence, in the event of the petitioner being granted anticipatory bail. Hence, the petitioner is disentitled to get any relief in this petition.

¶13

7.Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed.

¶14

-sd/23/08/2018

¶15

This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned

¶16

TRUE COPY

¶17

Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104. TO

¶18

1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, AMBUR TALUK POLICE STATION, VELLORE DISTRICT.

¶19

2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶20

CC to M/S.A.PANNEER SELVAM Advocate on payment of necessary charges

¶21

+1 CC to O/O PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SR.NO. 15807

¶22

CRL OP.16452/2018

¶23

Date :23/08/2018

¶24

RD 10/09/2018 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Saranraj@Vellai, Aged 24 Years v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saranraj@Vellai, Aged 24 Years v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Elephant G.Rajendran, Vs The Chief Secretary

R.Venkatachalam, Aged 75 Years Vs State by

K.T.Ponnusamy, M/45 Vs State Rep by Its

R.Silambu @ Silambarasan, Vs State Rep. by

Harishankar, Aged 21 Years, Vs State by

R.Eswaran, Aged 55 Years, Vs State Rep. by