Petitioner sought anticipatory bail in a robbery case. The Court examined the gravity of the offence involving weapon threat and actual robbery, concluding that anticipatory bail was not warranted and dismissed the application.
Application for anticipatory bail dismissed.
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.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction )
Wednesday, the Twelfth day of May Two Thousand and Twenty One
PRESENT
The Hon`ble Mr.Justice A.A.NAKKIRAN
CRL OP(MD). No.6583 of 2021
M.Sabari ... Petitioner/Accused
State represented by The Inspector of Police, Kamuthi Police Station, Ramanathapuram, Crime No.121/2021.. ... Respondent/Complainant
For Petitioner : M/s.Jeyaram Sidharth N,
Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr.R.Erottuchamy, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
PRAYER :-
For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No. 121 Of 2021 on the file of the respondent Police.
ORDER : The Court made the following order :-
The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offence under Section 392 I.P.C, in Crime No.121 of 2021, seeks anticipatory bail.
2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent.
3.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with other accused persons waylaid the defacto complainant and threatened him with knife and robbed a sum of Rs.7,500/- and a cell phone worth about Rs.6,000/-. Hence, the complaint.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, he seeks anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
2
5.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), on instructions, submitted that there are totally four accused, in which, two named accused and two unnamed accused. On the date of occurrence, the petitioner and other accused persons waylaid the defacto complainant and robbed Rs.7,500/- cash and his cell phone worth about Rs.6,000/-. Therefore, he strongly opposes to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
6.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the gravity of the offence committed by the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original is dismissed.
sd/-
12/05/2021
/ TRUE COPY /
/ /2021
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.
TO
ORDER IN
CRL OP(MD) No.6583 of 2021
Date :12/05/2021
mrn/msa CSL/MNR/SAR-IV/19.05.2021 : 2P/3C
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the accused apprehending arrest for robbery.
Whether the gravity of the offence precludes the grant of anticipatory bail.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M.Sabari
State
A.A.Nakkiran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
