Allowed

Saranraj@Vellai v. State by

Madras HC1 Nov 2018CRL OP/25111/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order grants anticipatory bail to the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The petitioner was accused of stealing idols and driving a car involved in the theft, though he claimed to be only a driver. The court allowed bail in view of co-accused being enlarged.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail upon arrest or surrender within two weeks, subject to bond and daily reporting.

Saranraj@Vellai Vs State by — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Thursday, the First day of November Two Thousand Eighteen

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr Justice R. MAHADEVAN

¶6

and

¶7

The Hon`ble Mr Justice P.D.AUDIKESAVALU

¶8

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.25111 of 2018

¶9

SARANRAJ @ VELLAI [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ]

¶10

¶11

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, [ RESPONDENT ] [*]PERNAMPET POLICE STATION , VELLORE DISTRICT.

¶12

(CR.NO.193/2018)

¶13

For Petitioner : M/S.D.A.SUGUMAR Advocate

¶14

For Respondent : MR.P.KIRTIKAKAMAL, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) [IN CRL.OP.NO.25111/2018]

¶15

For Respondent : MR.K.PRABHAKARAN ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶16

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

¶17

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶18

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.

¶19

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.

¶20

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner is only a driver of the aforesaid car and he does not know

¶21

the alleged offence committed by the other accused. The learned counsel further submitted that he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He also submitted that this is the third petition filed by the petitioner seeking anticipatory bail and all the other accused were enlarged on bail. Thus, the learned counsel prayed for anticipatory bail in favour of the petitioner.

¶22

4.According to the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent, the petitioner is directly involved in the commission of the offence and he is still in abscondence. However, she submitted that all the other accused, except the petitioner/A4, were enlarged on bail.

¶23

5.Heard both sides and perused the records.

¶24

6.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, more particularly, all the other accused were enlarged on bail, the petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in the event of his arrest by the respondent police or surrender on his appearance within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order before the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned, on the following conditions:-

¶25

(i)The petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambur; and

¶26

(ii)The petitioner shall appear and report before the Investigating Officer viz., the respondent herein, daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders.

¶27

7.Accordingly, this petition is ordered.

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

[*]Amended as per the order of this court dated 06/12/2018 made in CRL.MP.NO.15637 OF 2018 IN CRL.OP.NO.25111 OF 2018.

¶31

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

¶32

TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, AMBUR 2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE VELLORE[FOR INFORMATION] 3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶33

[*]THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERNAMPET POLICE STATION , VELLORE DISTRICT.

¶34

+1 CC to M/S.D.A.SUGUMAR Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.NO. 23421

¶35

CRL OP.25111/2018 Date :01/11/2018 RD 02/11/2018 RD 13/12/2018

¶36

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

Saranraj@Vellai v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saranraj@Vellai 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

Senthil Vinayagam Vs Dy Sup of Po Guindy Ch

Sakthivel, Vs the State Rep by Its

Yuganathan Vs Iop Idol Wing Cid., Guindy, Ch

Aji Vs The Deputy Superintedent of Police

Musthafa Vs Iop Idol Wing CID Guindy Ch

Venu Srinivasan, 66 Years, Vs the State Rep by Its