Dismissed

Selvakumar v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC5 Sept 2022CRL OP(MD)/14610/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court rejected a petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC. The court declined to grant relief due to the petitioner's extensive criminal antecedents (31 previous cases) and the serious nature of the offences, which included snatching gold and looting.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's application for anticipatory bail was dismissed; no protection against arrest was granted.

Selvakumar Vs The Inspector of Police — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶4

Date : 05/09/2022

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

The Hon`ble Mrs.Justice R.THARANI

¶7

CRL OP(MD). No.14610 of 2022

¶8

Selvakumar

¶9

... Petitioner/Petitioner 1^st Accused

¶10

¶11

State rep.by The Inspector of Police, Puliangudi Police Station, Tenkasi District. (Crime No.245/2022).

¶12

... Respondent/Complainant

¶13

For Petitioner : M/s.Senthil Kumaraiah J, Advocate.

¶14

For Respondent : Mr.M.Muthumanikkam, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶15

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

¶16

PRAYER :-

¶17

For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.245 of 2022 on the file of the Respondent police.

¶18

ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

¶19

The petitioner/A1, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 363, 387, 506(ii) and 109 IPC, in Crime No.245 of 2022, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶20

2.The case against the petitioner is that the petitioner and other accused had snatched 345 grams of gold jewels and looted a sum of Rs.20,000/- and one I-Phone from the victim.

¶21

3.On the side of the petitioner, it is stated that the property was already recovered. The major portion of the investigation is https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis already over and prayed the petitioner to be released on anticipatory bail.

¶22

¶23

4.On the side of the prosecution, it is stated that totally 9 accused involved in the offence. The petitioner is A1 and he demanded Rs.50,00,000/- from the victim and the property involved as 325 grams of gold jewels, Rs.20,000/- and one Phone. The petitioner is having 31 previous cases. He is an habitual offender and the prosecution raised serious objections for the release of the petitioner.

¶24

5.Considering the nature of the offence and on considering the previous antecedents of the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶25

6.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

¶26

Sd/05/09/2022 / TRUE COPY /

¶27

/09/2022 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.IV) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶28

SJI

¶29

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.

¶30

¶31

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PULIANGUDI POLICE STATION, TENKASI DISTRICT.

¶32

THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

¶33

ORDER

¶34

¶35

CRL OP(MD) No.14610 of 2022 Date :05/09/2022

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis SP/SVR/SAR IV/09/09/2022/2P/3C

Selvakumar v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Selvakumar 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

P.Selvaraj Vs Johnson Chellappa

S.P. Natarajan Vs R.M.Anandhi

M/S.National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Chellammal

Ramesh Vs The Inspector of Police

Karthick Vs The Inspector of Police

Venkatesan Vs The Inspector of Police