The High Court of Madras dismissed a Criminal Original Petition seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC. The court refused bail, citing the serious offences involved and the petitioners' bad antecedents, noting the dismissal of similar prior applications.
The application for anticipatory bail was rejected; the Criminal Original Petition was 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
DATED: 03.02.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN
Crl.O.P.No.20171 of 2020
-VsState by:... Respondent The Inspector of Police,(L & O) F-2, Egmore Police Station, Egmore, Chennai-600 008.
Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.774 of 2020 is pending on the file of the respondent police.
For Petitioners : Mr.G.Parthasarathy
For Respondent : Mr.S.Karthikeyan Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
The case has been heard through video conference
The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 448, 353, 294(b), 506(i) of IPC and under Section 4 of the TNPWH Act, in Crime No.774 of 2020, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is employee of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation. The allegation is that A1 in this case who is the driver of the said Corporation. Further, the petitioners along with Al had abused and attacked the Corporation Officials and discharging from their official duty. Hence, the complaint was registered.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and they are no way connected https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ with the alleged offence and they have been falsely implicated in
this case. He would further submit that co-accused has already been granted bail by the learned Additional Mahila Metropolitan Magistrate,, Egmore, Chennai, in Crl.M.P.No.315 of 2020 dated 06.11.2020. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the defacto complainant is employee of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation. The allegation is that A1 in this case who is the driver of the said Corporation. Further, the petitioners along with Al had abused and attacked the Corporation Officials and discharging from their official duty. He would further submit that A1 has been arrested and he was released on bail by the Lower Court. He would further submit that these petitioners are concerned, they belong to political party and attacked the corporation officials. He would further submit that the petitioners had moved the anticipatory bail applications before the Learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai and the same was dismissed in Crl.M.P.Nos.11091 & 12253 of 2020 and hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
-sd/03/02/2021
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 ADDITIONAL MAHILA METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, EGMORE, CHENNAI.
2 THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE CHENNAI.
3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE( L AND O), F-2, EGMORE POLICE STATION, EGMORE, CHENNAI-600 008.
4 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.
CC to M/S K.M.SUBRAMANIAM Advocate on payment of necessary charges
Date :03/02/2021
TA-22/02/2021
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioners are eligible to be granted anticipatory bail given the serious nature of the allegations and their antecedents?
Whether the dismissal of previous anticipatory bail applications by lower courts affects the current decision to deny relief?
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Selvam
Venkatesh
State
V. BHARATHIDASAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
V. BHARATHIDASAN
Parties & counsel
