Dismissed

Ruban v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC22 Jun 2023CRL OP/13067/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail petition for a jumped bail case involving allegations of murder and assault, the petitioner cited prior acquittals in another case as the reason for non-appearance. The single-judge High Court bench refused bail due to the petitioner's five-year absconding period, extensive criminal antecedents including pending murder cases, and the importance of securing him for trial progress.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal OriginalPetition for bail was dismissed; the petitioner remained in judicial custody.

Ruban Vs the Inspector of Police — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No. 13067 of 2023

¶2

Crl.O.P.No. 13067 of 2023

¶3

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

¶4

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 04.08.2022 for the alleged offence under Sections 147, 148, 302 r/w 149, 341, 201 r/w 302 r/w 201 of I.P.C. in Crime No.966 of 2009 on the

¶5

file of the respondent police and pending trial in S.C. No.49 of 2012 on the file of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu, seeks bail.

¶6

It is a case of jumped bail. The petitioner was arrested and

¶7

remanded to judicial custody on 04.08.2022 pursuant to the non-bailable warrant issued against him.

¶8

The learned counsel appearing for petitioner would submit that the petitioner was earlier granted bail and thereafter, he was regularly appearing before the trial Court. However, he was remanded to judicial custody in another case in Crime No.1345 of 2020 on the file of Ambattur Police Station and he was charge sheeted in C.C.No.27 of 2021 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur, in which he was convicted by an order dated 23.10.2021. He would submit that since he was remanded and

¶9

Page 1 of 4

¶10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶11

Crl.O.P.No. 13067 of 2023

¶12

subsequently convicted in the above mentioned case, he was unable to appear before the Court and subsequently, the learned Magistrate issued non bailable warrant against the petitioner, thereby he was detained under PT warrant on 04.08.2022 on execution of non-bailable warrant. He would submit that he is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case and this is the third petition seeking for bail. He would submit that he has not at all committed any offence and he is ready to abide any condition that may be imposed by this court. He would submit that he is ready to appear before the Court regularly and to co-operate for the trial. Hence, he prayed to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶13

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for respondent would submit that as he was not appeared before the trial court in the year of 2018, the learned Magistrate issued PT warrant and subsequently, the petitioner was arrested only on 04.08.2022 on execution of PT warrant. He would submit that he is a notorious person and he is having 32 previous cases including two murder cases and 5 cases under Sec.307 of I.P.C. pending against him and he was also detained under Goondas Act for four times, but again and again, he is committing the Page 2 of 4

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

Crl.O.P.No. 13067 of 2023

¶16

offence of murder. He would further submit that after securing him only, there is a progress in the trial. Hence, if he is released on bail, he may abscond and there is possibility of hampering the investigation. Therefore, he vehemently opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶17

Considering the above facts and circumstances and on considering submissions of both sides and also the fact that for the past five years, he absconded and after securing him only, there is a progress in the trial and also on seeing bad antecedents of the petitioner having 32 previous cases including 2 murder cases and 5 cases under Sec.307 of I.P.C. pending against him and four times, he was detained under Goondas Act and also there is no change of circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶18

Accordingly, this Criminal Original petition is dismissed.

22.06.2023

rri

Page 3 of 4

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

Crl.O.P.No. 13067 of 2023

¶24

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

¶25

rri

¶26

Crl.O.P.No.13067 of 2023

¶27

22.06.2023

¶28

Page 4 of 4

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Ruban v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ruban 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.S. Palanisamy (Died) Vs Raja Gounder (Deceased)

D.Sankarayyah(died) Vs P.K.Babu

D.Sai Lalan Khumar Vs K.Kanchana

K.K.Nithya Varshan Vs the Inspector of Police

Vellaimani @ Vinothkumar Vs Inspector of Police

Pradeep Vs the Inspector of Police