Petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. claiming false implication and change of circumstances. Court rejected the plea as petitioner was a main accused still in abscondence, required for investigation, with no valid change of circumstances shown.
None granted; petitioner denied anticipatory bail.
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
( Criminal Jurisdiction )
Tuesday, the Ninth day of October Two Thousand Eighteen
PRESENT
The Hon`ble Mr Justice R. MAHADEVAN
and
The Hon`ble Mr Justice P.D.AUDIKESAVALU
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.23127 of 2018
R.SILAMBU @ SILAMBARAWAN [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ]
Vs
THE STATE REP BY ITS [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KANNAMANGALAM POLICE STATION TIRUVANNAMALAI DISTRICT. CR.NO.391 OF 2018.
For Petitioner : M/S.S.L.VENKATESAN Advocate
For Respondent : M/S. KRITHIKA KAMAL, 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.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.
2.This is the second petition filed by the petitioner seeking anticipatory bail. Earlier, the petitioner has filed Crl.OP No.19582 of 2018 praying for grant of anticipatory bail and the same was dismissed by this Court by passing a detailed order on 23.08.2018. Therefore, it is not necessary to deal with the facts of the case in detail.
3.However, succinctly, the case of the prosecution is that 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.
4.According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the name of the petitioner did not find place in the FIR and he is
h
e
only a childhood friend of the said Gokulan of Kannamangalam Village. However, he has been falsely implicated in this case. Further, the change of circumstances pointed out by the learned counsel is that the investigation is almost completed and the co-accused were already released on bail. Therefore, the learned counsel seeks indulgence of this Court to consider this petition in favour of the petitioner.
5.The relief sought in this petition was seriously opposed by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent. According to her, the petitioner is the main accused and he is still in abscondence and hence, his presence is required for completion of investigation.
6.Head the rival submissions and perused the records.
-sd/09/10/2018
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, KANNAMANGALAM POLICE STATION TIRUVANNAMALAI DISTRICT.
2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.
+1 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT, MADRAS-104.
CRL OP.23127/2018
Date :09/10/2018 THS : 26.10.2018
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to a petitioner who is in abscondence and directly involved in the commission of the offence?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
R. SILAMBU @ SILAMBARAWAN
THE STATE REP BY ITS THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KANNAMANGALAM POLICE STATION TIRUVANNAMALAI DISTRICT
R. MAHADEVAN
P.D. AUDIKESAVALU
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
