Dismissed

S.Mohamed Riyas v. State Rep.by

Madras HC3 Jun 2020CRL OP/6990/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed a Criminal Original Petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC. The court rejected the plea, noting the petitioner's apprehension of arrest for offences of snatching and robbery/cheating, and the fact that the petitioner was involved in a similar case where bail had been dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Original Petition seeking anticipatory bail is dismissed.

S.Mohamed Riyas Vs State Rep.by — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated : 03.06.2020

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.6990 of 2020

¶6

S.Mohamed Riyas .. Petitioner / Accused No.3

¶7

/versus/

¶8

State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Town Station, Karaikkal, Pondicherry .. Respondent/Complainant

¶9

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code, to enlarge the petitioner in the event of the petitioner arrest pending investigation in Crime No.54 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Saravanabhavan

¶11

For Respondent : Mr.Bharatha Chakravarthi Public Prosecutor (Pondy)

¶12

O R D E R (The case has been heard through video conference)

¶13

The petitioner who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 356, 379 read with 34 of IPC in Crime No.54 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶14

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 01.03.2020 at 7.00 p.m., three unknown persons snatched the mobile phone of the defacto complainant. Hence, the complaint.

¶15

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶16

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioner is arrayed as A2. The petitioner along with other accused snatched mobile phone from the defacto complainant. Though the stolen property been recovered, the petitioner is involved in two offences. He further submitted that A1 bail petition was earlier dismissed and thereafter due to covid virus pandamic, he was granted interim bail. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Hence, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶17

5.Taking into consideration, the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the petitioner is involved in one another case of similar in nature, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶18

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

¶19

-sd/-

¶20

03/06/2020
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 JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
NO.II, KARAIKKAL
2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
PUDUCHERRY
3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
TOWN POLICE, KARAIKKAL,
PONDICHERRY.
CC to M/S.G.SARAVANABHAVAN Advocate on payment of necessary
charges
CRL OP.6990/2020
Date :03/06/2020
RVR 23/06/2020

¶21

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

S.Mohamed Riyas v. State Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Mohamed Riyas 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

Anbuselvan Vs State Rep by

Karthick Vs State Rep by

Venkatesan Vs State Rep. by Its

Naseer Ahmed Vs State Rep by

Sankar@Panai Sankar Vs State Rep. by

Basappa Vs the State