Petitioner sought bail for alleged offence under sections 392 and 397 IPC. Court rejected bail application citing serious nature of offence and petitioner's status as a habitual offender with previous similar convictions.
Bail application dismissed. Petitioner to remain in custody.
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.
CRL OP(MD). No.2422 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 08/02/2022 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mrs.Justice R.THARANI CRL OP(MD). No.2422 of 2022 A.Naseeth Mohaideen ... Petitioner/Accused No.2
Vs The State Rep.by The Inspector of Police, Nagamalai Pudukkottai Police Station, Madurai District. Cr.No. 502 of 2021. ... Respondent/Complainant
For Petitioner : Mr.I.Sabeer Mohamed Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.439 of Cr.P.C.
PRAYER :-
For Bail in Crime No.502 of 2021 on the file of the Respondent Police.
ORDER : The Court made the following order :-
The petitioner/A2 herein, who was arrested on 25.12.2021 for the alleged offence under Sections 392 and 397 of IPC, in Crime No.502 of 2021 on the file of the respondent police, seek bail.
2.The case against the petitioner is that he along with other accused snatched two soverigns of gold chain from the defacto complainant.
3.On the side of the petitioner it is stated that the case was registered against four persons. The petitioner is A2 in this case. A3 and A4 were already released on bail on 10.01.2022. The allegation is that only A3 has snatched the chain. The property was recovered only from A3. The petitioner is in custody for the past 46 days. The previous cases against the petitioner are alleged to have taken place two years ago and prayed the petitioner to be released on bail.
4.On the side of the prosecution it is stated that A1 and the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ complainant were face book friends. The complainant is 2nd year
1/2
CRL OP(MD). No.2422 of 2022
Medical College student. The petitioner is having two previous cases of similar nature (i) Cholavanthan Police Station in Crime No.1883 of 2020, under Section 392 I.P.C @ Sections 34 and 392 I.P.C. (ii) Vadipatti Police Station in Crime No. 1933 of 2020, under Sections 392 I.P.C @ Setion 386, 506(ii) I.P.C are the previous cases against the petitioner. The petitioner is a habitual offender H.S.No.258 of 2022 is maintained against him. Proceeding under the Goondas Act was initiated against the petitioner. The prosecution raised serious objection.
5.The offence alleged against the petitioner is serious in nature. Considering the nature of the offence and considering the previous antecedents, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at the present stage. Hence, this criminal original petition is dismissed.
sd/-
08/02/2022
/ TRUE COPY /
/ /2022 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
Ls
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.2422 of 2022 Date :08/02/2022
RD/JM/SAR-I(11.02.2022) 2P 4C
2/2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the accused who is a habitual offender facing charges of snatch theft.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
A.Naseeth Mohaideen
The State Rep.by The Inspector of Police, Nagamalai Pudukkottai Police Station
R. Tharani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
