Dismissed

R.Silambu @ Silambarasan, v. State Rep. by

Madras HC23 Aug 2018CRL OP/19582/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Madras dismissed a petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The court held that granting bail would likely hamper witnesses and tamper with evidence, especially as the petitioner was found directly involved in the offence and was in abscondence.

What did the court decide?

The petition for anticipatory bail stands dismissed as the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

R.Silambu @ Silambarasan, Vs State Rep. by — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Thursday, the Twenty Third day of August Two Thousand Eighteen

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

The Hon`ble Mr Justice R. MAHADEVAN

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr Justice P.D.AUDIKESAVALU CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.19582 of 2018

¶6

STATE REP. BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KANNAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, TIRUVANNAMALAI DISTRICT. CR.NO.391 OF 2018

¶7

For Petitioner : M/S.S.L.VENKATESAN Advocate

¶8

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

¶9

PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C.

¶10

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶11

Apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police in connection with the case in Crime No.391 of 2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 380(2) IPC and 25(1) of Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972, the petitioner has filed this Criminal Original Petition seeking anticipatory bail.

¶12

2.According to the prosecution case, based on the complaint lodged by one Munivel, Village Administrative Officer of Kattukanallur, Arani Taluk, the present case has been registered against one Gokulan and Harirajan, who made an attempt to sell a stolen antique Panchaloga Idol of Goddess to some third parties.

¶13

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the name of the petitioner did not find place in the FIR and he is only a childhood friend of the said Gokulan of Kannamangalam Village. However, he has been falsely implicated in this case. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed for an anticipatory bail in favour of the petitioner.

¶14

4.The relief sought in this petition was seriously opposed by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), stating that an antique https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Panchalok Idol of Goddess was found in possession of one Gokulan and

¶15

Hariraja, who were subsequently, arrested and were enquired, during the course of which, it came to light that the said Idol was stolen by the petitioner and was handed over to them for sale. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) further submitted that the value of the seized property, as per the complaint is Rs.12,50,000/- and the same was recovered, based on the confession statement of the aforesaid accused. According to the Government Advocate (Crl.Side), the petitioner is the main accused and he is still in abscondence and hence, his presence is required for completion of investigation.

¶16

5.Head both sides and perused the records.

¶17

6.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the submissions by the learned counsel on either side and also taking note of the fact that the petitioner is directly involved

¶18

in the commission of the offence, 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 dis-entitled to get any relief in this petition.

¶19

7.Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed. -sd/23/08/2018 This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned

¶20

TRUE COPY Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104. TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KANNAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, TIRUVANNAMALAI DISTRICT. 2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS. CC to M/S.S.L.VENKATESAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges +1 CC TO PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SR.NO.15808 CRL OP.19582/2018 Date :23/08/2018 RD 10/09/2018

¶21

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

R.Silambu @ Silambarasan, v. State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Silambu @ Silambarasan, v. State Rep. 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

Saranraj@Vellai, Aged 24 Years Vs State by

Harishankar, Aged 21 Years, Vs State by

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