Dismissed

K.Seenivasan v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC28 Jun 2021CRL OP(MD)/4407/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a temple priest accused of misappropriation of jewels missing from temple custody, sought anticipatory bail under Cr.P.C. Sec.438. The Madurai Bench dismissed the petition noting the items were unrecovered and investigation was pending, finding the petitioner closely connected to the case.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Original Petition seeking anticipatory bail is dismissed; relief is denied.

K.Seenivasan Vs The Inspector of Police — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

CRL OP(MD). No.4407 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Date : 28/06/2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice G.CHANDRASEKHARAN

¶6

CRL OP(MD). No.4407 of 2021

¶7

K.Seenivasan ... Petitioner/Accused Rank Not Known

¶8

¶9

State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Edayakottai Police Station, Dindigul District. Crime No.27/2021.

¶10

... Respondent/Complainant

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.Sudhagar Nagaraj.N., Advocate.

¶12

For Respondent : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar, Additional Public Prosecutor

¶13

PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C

¶14

PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime no. 27 of 2021 on the file of the respondent Police.

¶15

ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

¶16

The petitioner/accused, apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under sections 380 and 420 I.P.C., in Crime No.27 of 2021 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶17

The case of the prosecution is that there is a temple called Sree Angala Parameshwari Temple near Edayakottai belongs to Chettiar Community people. There are 12 poojaris in this temple headed by the petitioner - K.Seenivasan. The temple also owns jewels for Statues of Deities. On 25.02.2020, there was a temple function and after the function was over, the jewels were kept in the iron bureau and the key was handed over to the petitioner-K.Seenivasan. Again for this year's function, the bureau was opened on 12.03.2021 at about 2.30a.m. The key was given by Seenivasan-petitioner herein. After opening the bureau, on verification it was found that out of 53 jewels, 39 jewels were missing. Therefore, this case came to be registered.

¶18

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner is innocent and apart from the key possessed by him,

¶19

1/2

¶20

CRL OP(MD). No.4407 of 2021

¶21

there are five keys available with others, who are in-charge of the temple management. Therefore, he seeks anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶22

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State opposed this petition on the ground that so far, the lost jewels had not been recovered and the investigation is not yet completed.

¶23

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and perused the materials placed on record.

¶24

This is a case where the jewels belong to Sree Angala Parameshwari Temple said to be missing, when it was alleged to have in the custody of the petitioner. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the petitioner is a head priest. He was the one of the persons, possessed the bureau key and he was the person, who gave key for opening the bureau on 12.03.2021. The missing/stolen jewels are not recovered so far. The investigation is in the preliminary stage. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

¶25

sd/28/06/2021

¶26

/ TRUE COPY / / /2021 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶27

Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

¶28

¶29

1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

¶30

EDAYAKOTTAI POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL DISTRICT. 2 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

¶31

ORDER

¶32

¶33

CRL OP(MD) No.4407 of 2021 Date :28/06/2021 ssl

¶34

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ JM/VR/SAR V/01.07.2021/2P/3C

¶35

2/2

K.Seenivasan v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Seenivasan v. The Inspector of Police

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

Sikkandar Vs The Inspector of Police

Manikandan Vs The Inspector of Police

Vinoth Vs The Inspector of Police

S.Sakthivel @ Sakthi Vs The Inspector of Police

Thirumani Vs The Inspector of Police

Tamilselvan Vs The Inspector of Police