In this bail petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the High Court of Madras refused relief. The Court held that the offences were heinous and found no change in circumstances regarding previous dismissals of similar bail petitions, leading to the dismissal of the current petition for bail.
Bail petition dismissed. Petitioner remains in custody pending further orders.
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 )
Tuesday, the Seventh day of December Two Thousand Twenty One
PRESENT
The Hon`ble Mr Justice M.DHANDAPANI
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.23549 of 2021
KUMARESAN [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ]
Vs
STATE REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VANUR POLICE STATION, VILLUPURAM DISTRICT. CRIME NO. 3 OF 2019.
[ RESPONDENT ]
For Petitioner : M/S. R.SASIKUMAR Advocate
For Respondent : MR. S.BALAJI, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side)
PETITION FOR BAIL 439 Cr.P.C.
ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-
The petitioner who was arrested on 08.03.2021 for the offence under Sections 294(b), 366, 342, 354(A), 376(D) of IPC r/w 511 and 506 (ii) of IPC r/w Section 4 of Women Harassment Act in Cr.No.3 of 2019 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.
2.It is the case of the prosecution that on 30.12.2018 at about 8.00 p.m., when the defacto complainant was waiting for bus, the petitioner along with the other accused voluntarily assured her to drop her at her working place and took her in a car and they are alleged to have driven the car in some other way and threatened her by showing deadly weapons. Thereafter, the defacto complainant escaped from them and lodged the complaint.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.
4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that earlier, the petitioner approached this Court by filing Crl.O.P.Nos.16567 and 20192 of 2021 and this Court has dismissed the said petitions and vehemently opposed for grant of bail to the petitioner.
5.Considering the fact that the offence committed by the petitioner is heinous offence and since there is no change in circumstances subsequent to the order passed in Crl.O.P.Nos.16567 and 20192 of 2021, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
6.Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed.
-sd/-
07/12/2021
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 SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, CUDDALORE.
2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VANUR POLICE STATION, VILLUPURAM DISTRICT.
3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.
CC to M/S. R.SASIKUMAR Advocate on payment of necessary charges
CRL OP.23549/2021 Date :07/12/2021 RW 15/12/2021
1 issue framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted under Section 439 Cr.P.C. despite previous dismissal of similar petitions in the same proceedings.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kumaresan
State Rep By the Inspector of Police
M. Dhandapani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
