The High Court of Madras dismissed a second petition filed by a petitioner for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C., holding that no ground existed since an earlier identical petition was dismissed by this court and the petitioner was fleeing justice.
The petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. stands dismissed.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Monday, the First day of October Two Thousand Eighteen
PRESENT
The Hon`ble Mr Justice R.MAHADEVAN
The Hon`ble Mr Justice P.D.AUDIKESAVALU CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.22897 of 2018 SARANRAJ @ VELLAI, [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ] Vs STATE BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, AMBUR TALUK POLICE STATION, VELLORE DISTRICT. CR.NO.193 OF 2018
For Petitioner : M/S.D.A.SUGUMAR Advocate
For Respondent : MR. T.P. SAVEETHA, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-
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 come up with this Criminal Original Petition seeking anticipatory bail.
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.
4.According to the petitioner, he is only a driver of the aforesaid car and he does not know the alleged offence committed by the accused. Hence, he prayed for anticipatory bail.
-sd/-
01/10/2018
This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned
TRUE COPY
Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104.
TO
1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, AMBUT TALUK POLICE STATION, VELLORE DISTRICT.
2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ HIGH COURT, MADRAS.
CC to M/S.D.A.SUGUMAR Advocate on payment of necessary charges +1 CC to THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, CHENNAI. SR.NO.18527
CRL OP.22897/2018 Date :01/10/2018
TA-16/10/2018
3 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to a petitioner who has filed a second petition after an earlier one was dismissed by the same court without showing a change of circumstances.
Whether the petitioner's failure to appear and flee from the process of justice makes him ineligible for anticipatory bail in a second petition.
Whether the lack of any ground to challenge the dismissal of the earlier anticipatory bail petition warrants granting fresh bail.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SARANRAJ @ VELLAI
THE STATE
R. MAHADEVAN
P.D. AUDIKESAVALU
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
