In a criminal bail petition under Cr.P.C. Sections 437 and 439, the High Court of Madras declined to grant bail to the petitioner charged with kidnapping and cheating. The court found the allegations credible and held that it was not inclined to grant relief.
Petition for bail dismissed; petitioner remanded in judicial custody.
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
DATED : 14.06.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
Crl.O.P.No.10359 of 2021
Arumugam
... Petitioner
Vs. State Rep. by: The Sub – Inspector of Police, Barur Police Station, Krishnagiri – 635 001. ... Respondent
Prayer:
Petition filed under Sections 437 and 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.76 of 2021 pending on the file of the respondent police.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ranjith Kumar For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl. Side) O R D E R
The petitioner who was remanded to judicial custody on 26.05.2021 for the offence under Sections 419, 364(A) of IPC in Cr.No.76 of 2021 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.
2.It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner along with the other accused are alleged to have kidnapped the defacto complainant for ransom.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and that he has been falsely implicated in the case.
4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that the accused identified themselves as police officials and kidnapped the defacto complainant and demanded money. After receipt of a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- from the defacto complainant's son, they released the defacto complainant. He further submitted that A2 and A5 in this case are yet to be secured and further submitted that the crime amount has not yet been recovered.
5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the allegations levelled against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
6.Accordingly, the criminal original petition is dismissed.
-sd/14/06/2021
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 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
BARUR POLICE STATION,
KRISHNAGIRI-635001.
2 THE OFFICER INCHARGE,
DISTRICT SUB-JAIL,
KRISHNAGIRI.
3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT, MADRAS.
CC to M/S S.RANJITH KUMAR Advocate on payment of necessary
charges
CRL OP.10359/2021
Date :14/06/2021
MK:06/07/2021
1 issue framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner charged with kidnapping and cheating offences.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Arumugam
State Rep. by: The Sub – Inspector of Police, Barur Police Station
M. Dhandapani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
