Madras High Court
CRL OP(MD)/18009/2017 of M.SARAN Vs THE 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.18009 of 2017 1 M.SARAN 2 K.GOWTHAM @ KUTULU ... PETITIONERS / ACCUSED (RANK NOT KNOWN) Vs STATE REP.BY THE
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.18009 of 2017
1 M.SARAN
2 K.GOWTHAM @ KUTULU
... PETITIONERS / ACCUSED(RANK NOT KNOWN)
Vs
STATE REP.BYTHE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRUPPUVANAM POLICE STATION, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT. (CRIME NO. 275 OF 2017)... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT
For Petitioners: M/S.M.SHAKUL HAMEED Advocate For 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 :- Apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police forthe alleged offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 IPC inCrime No.275 of 2017 on the file of the first respondent police, thepetitioners have come forward with this petition seekinganticipatory bail.
2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and thelearned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondentpolice.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners alongwith others broke open the TASMAC Shop No.7682, Keeladi, SivagangaiDistrict and taken away the liquor bottles.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that thepetitioners are innocent and have not committed any such offence asalleged by the prosecution and A1 to A3 were already arrested andreleased on bail and the properties involved in the case have beenrecovered.
5. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit thathttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/investigation is pending.
6. Though A1 to A3 were arrested and released on bail, takingnote of the fact that the petitioners are alleged to have involvedin a serious offence, this Court is of the view that custodialinterrogation of the petitioner is necessary in this case andtherefore, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail tohim.
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 POLICE, THIRUPPUVANAM POLICE STATION, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT.
2. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
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.
ORDER
IN
CRL OP(MD) No.18009 of 2017
Date :28/12/2017
MS/CM-VR/SAR.1/02.01.2018/2P.3C