Dismissed

Jothi v. State Rep. by

Madras HC9 Feb 2021CRL OP/20528/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal original petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the Madras High Court refused anticipatory bail to the petitioner accused of burglary and theft. The court accepted the prosecution's argument that unrecovered stolen jewels necessitated custodial interrogation.

What did the court decide?

Bail refused on the ground that custodial interrogation is necessary for recovery of unrecovered stolen jewels.

Jothi Vs State Rep. by — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Tuesday, the Ninth day of February Two Thousand Twenty One

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr Justice V. BHARATHIDASAN CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.20528 of 2020

¶6

1 JOTHI [ PETITIONERS / ACCUSED ] 2 PERUMAL

¶7

Vs STATE REP. BY [ RESPONDENT ] INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DHARMAPURI POLICE STATION, DHARMAPURI DISTRICT.

¶8

CRIME NO.1687 OF 2020

¶9

For Petitioner : M/S.E.KANNADASAN Advocate For Respondent : M/S.S.KARTHIKEYAN, Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶10

For Respondent : M/S.S.KARTHIKEYAN, Additional Public Prosecutor

¶11

The petitioner apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 454, 457 and 380 of IPC, in Crime No.1687 of 2020, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶12

Totally there are 3 accused in this case and the petitioner is A2 and A3. It is alleged that the petitioners along with A2 broke open the house of the defacto complainant and stolen 14 soverigns of gold jewels. Hence, the complaint.

¶13

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and is no way connected with the alleged offence. Hence he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶14

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioners along with with A2 broke open the house of the defacto complainant and stolen 14 soverigns of gold jewels and they also share the stolen jewels among themselves. He would further submit that as some of the jewels are yet to be recovered, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary to this case. Hence he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶15

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

¶16

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and also the submissions made by the learned additional public prosecutor that some of the jewels are yet to be recovered and custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary to this case, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶17

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

¶18

-sd/-

¶19

09/02/2021 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 INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DHARMAPURI POLICE STATION, DHARMAPURI DISTRICT. 2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS. CC to M/S.E.KANNADASAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.20528/2020 Date :09/02/2021 cs 02/03/2021

¶20

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

Jothi v. State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jothi v. State Rep. by

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

G.Dilli Vs State Rep by

Sankar Vs State Rep.by

P.Sarathkumar Vs Union of India Rep by

Sathishkumar Vs State Rep by

Raja Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep by

Aathi@Arunkumar Vs State Rep by