Dismissed

Vinothkumar v. the State Repby

Madras HC7 Sept 2021CRL OP/16217/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Criminal Original Petition, the High Court of Madras dismissed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. filed by Vinothkumar, who faced charges of theft under Section 379 IPC. The court refused relief due to a prior dismissed petition and pending investigation.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail was denied due to a previous dismissed petition and pending investigation.

Vinothkumar Vs the State Repby — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Tuesday, the Seventh day of September Two Thousand Twenty One

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr Justice M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.16217 of 2021

¶7

VINOTHKUMAR [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ]

¶8

¶9

THE STATE REPBY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KATTUR POLICE STATION, THIRUVALLUR DISTRICT CRNO.256/2021

¶10

[ RESPONDENT ]

¶11

For Petitioner : M/S.R.SASIKUMAR Advocate

¶12

For Respondent : M/S. A.GOPINATH, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side)

¶13

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

¶14

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶15

(The case has been heard through video conference)

¶16

The petitioner who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence under Section 379 of IPC in Crime No.256 of 2021, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶17

The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant who is working as labourer in Crown Coating and Contracting Company. On 12.07.2021, an Air Compressor worth about Rs.8.51 lakhs was stolen from their company. Hence, the complaint.

¶18

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not committed any such offence as alleged by the prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in this case. The learned counsel further submits that the property has been recovered from the main accused and the main accused was arrested and released on bail by the Lower Court. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶19

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

¶20

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submits that the property worth about Rs.8.51 lakhs has been recovered. He further submits that this Court vide order dated 12.08.2021 in Crl.OP.No.14169 of 2021 dismissed the petitioner's earlier anticipatory bail petition on the ground that the first petitioner has one previous case to his credit with similar nature. He further submits that the investigation is pending and not yet completed.

¶21

In view of the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) and also considering the fact that there is no change of circumstances after the dismissal of the petitioner's earlier anticipatory bail petition, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

¶22

-sd/-

¶23

07/09/2021

¶24

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

¶25

TRUE COPY

¶26

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

¶27

¶28

1 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KATTUR POLICE STATION, THIRUVALLUR DISTRICT

¶29

2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶30

CC to M/S.R.SASIKUMAR Advocate on payment of necessary charges

CRL OP.16217/2021

Date :07/09/2021

APN 30/09/2021

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

Vinothkumar v. the State Repby

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinothkumar v. the State Repby

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

Thangavel Vs State Rep by

Shoodesh Vs State Rep by

Hari Vs the State Rep by

G.Natarasan Vs the State Rep.by

D.Jayaprakash Vs Inspector of Police

K.Rajendran Vs State Rep by