The High Court at Madras dismissed an anticipatory bail petition. The petitioner faced charges of robbery, affray, and public property damage. The Court refused bail noting the petitioner was a history sheet with seven similar cases pending.
None. Anticipatory bail petition dismissed.
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 )
Friday, the Eighteenth day of June Two Thousand Twenty One
PRESENT
The Hon`ble Mr Justice M.DHANDAPANI
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.10195 of 2021
SAILESH KUMAR @ VICHU [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ]
Vs
THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE [ RESPONDENT ] (H-5) NEW WASHERMENPET POLICE STATION, CHENNAI.
CR.NO.1053 OF 2021
For Petitioner : M/S.A.VENKATESWARA BABU Advocate
For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C.
ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-
The petitioner who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence under Sections 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 397 and 506(ii) of I.P.C, and under Section 3 of TN Public Property (Prevention of Damage & Loss) Act, 1992, in Cr.No.1053 of 2021 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2.There are totally six accused and the petitioner is arrayed as first accused in this case. The case of the prosecution is that on 04.06.2021, at about 12.30 hours, when the defacto complainant came near the Amman Thottam, the petitioner herein and other accused had committed robbery and robbed a sum of Rs.230/-from him at knife point and damaged the vehicle by using knife. Hence the complaint.
3.The learned counsel appearing 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.
4.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that the petitioner is a history sheeter and would further submit that there are seven previous cases of similar nature pending against the petitioner.
5.Considering the fact that there are seven previous cases of similar nature pending against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
6.Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed.
-sd/-
18/06/2021
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 (H-5) NEW WASHERMENPET POLICE STATION, CHENNAI.
2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.
CC to M/S.A.VENKATESWARA BABU Advocate on payment of necessary charges
CRL OP.10195/2021 Date :18/06/2021 RVR 16/07/2021
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner who is accused of a serious offence involving robbery and pending in other similar cases.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
SAILESH KUMAR @ VICHU
THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
M.DHANDAPANI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
