Dismissed

Suresh v. State Rep.by Its

Madras HC8 Feb 2021CRL OP/1945/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras disposed of an anticipatory bail petition filed by Suresh against illegal transport of river sand. The petitioner claimed innocence but had three pending cases. The court refused bail due to the seriousness of the offence and prior pending cases, dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail application was dismissed; petitioner is not granted bail.

Suresh Vs State Rep.by Its — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated :08.02.2021

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. BHARATHIDASAN

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.1945 of 2021

¶6

Suresh ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

State by: The Inspector of Police, Rathinagiri Police Station, Vellore District. (Crime No.484 of 2018)

¶9

... Respondent

¶10

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code to enlarge to the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.484 of 2018 on the file of the respondent.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.G.P.Sivakumar

¶12

For Respondent : Mr.S.Karthikeyan Addl. Public Prosecutor

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

(The case has been heard through video conference)

¶15

The petitioner apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Section 379 and 430 IPC and 30(A) of MMDR Rules in Crime No.484 of 2018, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶16

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is said to have transported four bags of river river sand illegally. Hence, the complaint.

¶17

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he is no way connected with the above said offence. He would further submit that he has been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶18

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the

¶19

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

¶20

State submitted that the petitioner is said to have transported 4 bags of river sand illegally and that there are three previous cases pending against the petitioner. Hence, he strongly opposed to grant anticipatory bail.

¶21

Considering the fact that the petitioner has involved in serious offence and that the petitioner has three pending cases, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.

¶22

-sd/-

¶23

08/02/2021

¶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 DISTRICT MUNSIF CUM JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ARCOT.

¶29

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, VELLORE [FOR INFORMATION].

¶30

3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶31

4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, RATHINAGIRI POLICE STATION, VELLORE DISTRICT.

¶32

CC to M/S.G.P.SIVAKUMAR Advocate on payment of necessary charges

CRL OP.1945/2021

Date :08/02/2021

EP-24/02/2021

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

Suresh v. State Rep.by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh v. State Rep.by Its

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

Prasanna Vs State by

Subasri Vs the State of Tamilnadu Rep.by

Karthickeyan Vs State Rep. by

Tae Hyup Kim Vs State Rep by

Ranjithkumar Vs State Rep by

M.Sarfudeen Vs State by