The Madras High Court dismissed the bail petition of a robbery petitioner. Despite a prior directive to split the case, the petitioner's involvement in 32 pending cases and the Magistrate's compliance with the split order were weighed, leading to a rejection of bail.
BAIL application dismissed; trial to be completed within three months from 18/03/2021.
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 15.03.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
Crl.O.P.No.4180 of 2021
K.Mahendiran ... Petitioner
Vs.
State by ... Respondent
The Inspector Of Police,
Moolanur Police Station
Tiruppur District
(Cr. No.10 of 2017)
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C. to grant bail to the petitioner in C.C.No.147 of 2017 (on
the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Dharapuram, Tiruppur
District) in Crime No.10 of 2017 on the file of the respondent
police.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Pugalenthi
For Respondent : Mr.T.Shunmua Rajeshwaran
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
(The case has been heard through video conference)
The petitioner who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 13.08.2018 for the offence punishable under Section 379 @ 392 read with 34 IPC in Crime No.10 of 2017, seeks bail.
3 . The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and since, the petitioner has got previous cases, he was falsely implicated in this case and arrested and that the petitioner is not at all involved in this case. He would submit that the petitioner had earlier moved this Court seeking for bail in Crl.O.P.No.11219 of 2020 and this Court while dismissing the earlier application, had directed the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dharapuram, to split up https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the case against the petitioner and to complete the trial
preferably within a period of three months from the date of lifting of lockdown. He would submit that despite lifting of lockdown, the case has not been split up and that the petitioner is in custody for more than 2½ years. Hence, he prays for grant of bail.
-sd/-
15/03/2021
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 JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
DHARAPURAM.
2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
TIRUPPUR. [FOR INFORMATION]
3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT, MADRAS.
4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
MOOLANUR POLICE STATION,
TIRUPPUR DISTRICT.
5 THE SUPERINTENDENT,
CENTRAL PRISON, TRICHY.
CC to M/S.P.PUGALENTHI Advocate on payment of necessary
charges
CRL OP.4180/2021
Date :15/03/2021
TA-17/03/2021
1 issue framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner in view of his involvement in 32 pending cases and delay in splitting the trial.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
K. Mahendiran
State by Inspector Of Police, Moolanur
A.D. Jagadish Chandira
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
