Madras High Court
CRL OP(MD)/18007/2017 of R. JEYAKUMAR Vs THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, on 28 December 2017
BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Twenty Eighth day of December Two Thousand Seventeen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice S.VAIDYANATHAN CRL OP(MD) No.18007 of 2017 R.JEYAKUMAR ...PETITIONER/ ACCUSED NO.1 Vs STATE REP.BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, RAJAPALAYAM
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT( Criminal Jurisdiction )
Thursday, the Twenty Eighth day of December Two Thousand SeventeenPRESENT
The Hon`ble Mr Justice S.VAIDYANATHAN
CRL OP(MD) No.18007 of 2017
R.JEYAKUMAR
...PETITIONER/ ACCUSED NO.1
Vs
STATE REP.BYTHE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, RAJAPALAYAM NORTH POLICE STATION, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT. CRIME NO.857/2017 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT
For Petitioner : M/S.G.MARIMUTHU, AdvocateFor Respondent : M/S.K.ANBARASAN, Government Advocate(Crl.Side)
PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C.
ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of therespondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Section7(3) of the Lotteries (Regulation)Act, 1998,in Crime No. 857 of 2017on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. Heard the learned counsel on either side.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the on 20.12.2017, duringinspection, the respondent police found that A1 to A3 sold theLotteries against the Law and Regulations. Further the respondentpolice have arrested the accused no.2 and recovered 10 numbers oflottery sheets and a sum of Rs.150/- from him and remanded toJudicial custody. Based on the complaint, case has been registeredfor the above said offences.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitionerthat no such occurrence was happened as alleged by the prosecution.He further submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person andhe has not committed any offence and prays for anticipatory bail.
5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) submitted thatthere are totally three accused in this case and the petitionerherein is A1. He further submitted that the petitioner has onehttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/previous case in the similar nature of offence. Hence he opposed forgranting anticipatory bail.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and alsoconsidering the submission made by the learned Government Advocate(Crl.side) that the petitioner is having one previous case in thesimilar nature of offence, I am not inclined to grant anticipatorybail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal OriginalPetition is dismissed.
sd/- 28/12/2017 / TRUE COPY /
Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, RAJAPALAYAM NORTH POLICE STATION, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT.
2. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
ORDER IN
CRL OP(MD) No.18007 of 2017
Date :28/12/2017
MS/CM-VR/SAR.1/02.01.2018/2P.3C