CRL OP(MD)/18006/2017 of ANUBUSELVAM Vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE on 28 December 2017

BEFORE THE MADURAI 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.18006 of 2017

ANUBUSELVAM ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.5

Vs

STATE THROUGN,

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE RAJAPALAYAM SOUTH POLICE STATION, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT, CRIME NO. 724 OF 2017... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

For Petitioner : Mr.G.MARIMUTHU Advocate For Respondent : Mr.K.ANBARASAN, Government Advocate (Crl.side)

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

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- Apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police forthe alleged offence punishable under Section 394 altered into 395IPC in Crime No.724 of 2017 on the file of the respondent police,the petitioner has come forward with this petition seekinganticipatory bail.

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and thelearned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondentpolice.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner alongwith other accused have snatched Rs.1,000/- and a gold chainweighing 2 sovereigns from the defacto complainant and his relativeAbitha at knife point.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that thepetitioner is innocent and has not committed any such offence asalleged by the prosecution and the petitioner has been implicatedbased on the confession of A1 and A1 and A2 were already released onbail and the properties involved in this case were recovered.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/5. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that thepetitioner is having two previous cases.petitioner is having two previous cases.

6. Though A1 and A2 were already arrested and released on bailand the properties involved in this case were recovered, taking noteof the fact that the petitioner has bad antecedents and also thefact that the petitioner is alleged to have involved in a seriousoffence, this Court is of the view that custodial interrogation ofthe petitioner is necessary in this case and therefore, this Courtis not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to him.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

sd/-

28/12/2017

/ TRUE COPY /

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

TO

1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICERAJAPALAYAM SOUTH POLICE STATION, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT, 2 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI