Dismissed

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

Madras HC7 Jan 2019CRL OP/28141/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought anticipatory bail for offences under Sections 380(2) IPC and the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act. The Court dismissed the third petition, noting the petitioner was the main accused, was in abscondence, required for investigation, and offered no change of circumstances.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail prayer is not considered and the petition is dismissed.

R.Silambu @ Silambarasan Vs the State Rep. by — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Monday, the Seventh day of January Two Thousand Nineteen

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr Justice R. MAHADEVAN

¶6

and

¶7

The Hon`ble Mr Justice P.D.AUDIKESAVALU CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.28141 of 2018

¶8

R.SILAMBU @ SILAMBARASAN [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ]

¶9

¶10

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

¶11

For Petitioner : M/S.C.PRABAKARAN Advocate

¶12

For Respondent : MR. C.AYYAPPARAJ ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶13

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

¶14

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶15

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.

¶16

2.This is the third 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. The second petition in Crl.O.P.No.23127 of 2018 filed by the petitioner seeking anticipatory bail was also dismissed, vide order dated 09.10.2018, on merits.

¶17

3.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.

¶18

4.According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the name

¶19

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. Further, the change of circumstances pointed out by the learned counsel is that the investigation is almost over and the co-accused were already released on bail by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam. Therefore, the learned counsel seeks indulgence of this Court to consider this petition in favour of the petitioner.

¶20

5.On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent seriously opposed the relief sought in this petition. According to him, the petitioner is directly involved in the commission of the offence and he is still in abscondence and hence, his presence is required for completion of investigation.

¶21

6.Head the rival submissions and perused the records.

¶22

7.Considering the fact that the petitioner is the main accused in this case and he is still in abscondence and taking note of the submission made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the petitioner is very much required for completion of the investigation, this Court is not inclined to consider the prayer made in this petition. Further, there is no change of circumstances pointed out by the petitioner for filing this third petition seeking anticipatory bail. Therefore, this Court finds no ground to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, who is otherwise fleeing from the clutches of law.

¶23

8.Hence, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.

¶24

-sd/-

¶25

07/01/2019

¶26

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

¶27

TRUE COPY

¶28

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

¶29

¶30

1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KANNAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANNAMALAI DISTRICT.

¶31

2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶32

+1 CC to M/S.C.PRABAKARAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges-667

¶33

+1 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT, MADRAS-104.

¶34

CRL OP.28141/2018

¶35

Date :07/01/2019 ths : 18.01.2019

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Silambu @ Silambarasan v. the 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

Ranvir R Shah Vs Dy Sup of Po Idol Wing CID Ch

Dheenadhayalan, Vs the State Rep.by

Karthi @ Karthikeyan Vs State Rep.by

Yuvaraj Vs the Inspector of Police

H.Mohamed Kasheeb Vs State Rep. by

Avaneeswari Vs The Commissioner