Dismissed

V.Munusamy v. State Rep by

Madras HC5 Sept 2019CRL OP/23179/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The petitioners were accused of robbing a TASMAC shop. The Court refused bail citing the petitioners' bad antecedents, the initial stage of investigation, and the necessity of custodial interrogation.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. was denied, and the Criminal Original Petition was dismissed.

V.Munusamy Vs State Rep by — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Thursday, the Fifth day of September Two Thousand Nineteen

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr Justice C.V. KARTHIKEYAN CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.23179 of 2019

¶6

1 V.MUNUSAMY [ PETITIONERS / ACCUSED ] 2 G.SUBRAMANI

¶7

Vs STATE REP BY, [ RESPONDENT ] INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ARAKKONAM TOWN POLICE STATION, VELLORE DISTRICT. CR.NO. 193 OF 2019.

¶8

For Petitioner : M/S.M.MURALI Advocate

¶9

For Respondent : MR.T.SHUNMUGARAJESWARAN Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side)

¶10

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

¶11

The petitioners apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC, in Crime No.193 of 2019, seek anticipatory bail.

¶12

The case of the prosecution is that on 04.03.2019, the petitioners have broken the door of the TASMAC shop situated at Padur Road, Kumminipeet, Arakkonam, and they robbed a sum of Rs.1,39,340/-, which was kept in the safety locker of the TASMAC. Hence the complaint.

¶13

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and they are no way connected with the alleged offences. The petitioners name have been falsely implicated by the respondent police without any proper enquiry. Hence he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶14

The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that the petitioners have robbed a sum of Rs.1,39,340/- which was kept in the safety locker of the TASMAC. The investigation is not yet completed and if the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, there is a possibility that he will tamper the witnesses and hamper the investigation. He would further submit the petitioners have committed serious offences and hence he https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ vehemently opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶15

Taking into consideration the allegations and also the bad antecedent of the petitioners and the fact that the case is in the initial stage of the investigation and that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners are essential, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶16

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

¶17

-sd/05/09/2019

¶18

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

¶19

TRUE COPY Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104. TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ARAKKONAM TOWN POLICE STATION, VELLORE DISTRICT. 2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS. CC to M/S.M.MURALI Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.23179/2019 Date :05/09/2019 RD 21/10/2019

¶20

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

V.Munusamy v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Munusamy 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

M.Hariaharan Vs Gopakumar Balakrishnan

Mrs. K. Hemalatha Vs Mr. M. Kannivel

A.Ezhilarasi Vs Anandrao Vishnu Patil I.A.S

Mohamed Abbas @ Babu Vs the State

Suseel Raj Kumar Vs the State Rep by

Mrs.Alice Manoranjitham Vs Mr.G.Natarajan