The High Court dismissed a bail petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The accused, charged with offences including robbery and cheating via duplicate ATM cards, was found likely to abscond, warranting denial of bail.
Bail to the petitioner was denied.
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
( Criminal Jurisdiction )
Wednesday, the Twenty Fourth day of November Two Thousand Twenty One
PRESENT
The Hon`ble Mrs Justice T.V. THAMILSELVI
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.22248 of 2021
[ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ]
Vs
STATE REP.BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, G2, PERIAMET POLICE STATION, CHENNAI.
Crime No.366 of 2021
For Petitioner : M/S. M.RAJU SHARMA Advocate
For Respondent : MR.N.S.SUGANTHAN, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side)
PETITION FOR BAIL 439 Cr.P.C.
ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-
(The case has been heard through video conference)
The petitioner who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 12.07.2021 for the offences under Sections 379 @ 454, 465, 467, 468, 471, 420, 380 of IPC r/w 34 of IPC, in Crime No.366 of 2021, on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that the investigation has been completed and the charge sheet has been filed and the same has been taken on file in C.C.No.7269 of 2021 on the file of the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and that the petitioner has been suffering incarceration for more than 150 days from 22.06.2021 and would pray for grant of bail to the petitioner.
4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would raise strong objection stating that the petitioner along with other accused continuously engaged in ATM robberies. He would further submit that the petitioner belongs to Haryana state and if he is released on bail, there is every possibility of the petitioner getting abscond and thereby, the trial would be stalled.
5.On seeing the modes operandi and considering the submission of the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) that there is possibility of the petitioner getting abscond, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.
-sd/-
24/11/2021
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, G2, PERIAMET POLICE STATION, CHENNAI.
2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.
+1 CC to M/S. M.RAJU SHARMA Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.No.13324
CRL OP.22248/2021
Date :24/11/2021
APN 26/11/2021
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the accused charged with ATM fraud and robbery offences.
Whether the grounds of apprehension of absconding justify the refusal of bail.
The Petitioner
RE.P. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, G2, PERIAMET POLICE STATION, CHENNAI
T.V. THAMILSELVI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
