Pragash v. State Rep By,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 21.01.2021 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. BHARATHIDASAN Crl.O.P.No.639 of 2021 Pragash ... Petitioner Vs.

State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Tindivanam Police Station, Villupuram District.

(Crime No.2493 of 2020) ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No. 2493 of 2020 pending on the file of the respondent.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sasikumar For Respondent : Mr.S.Karthikeyan Addl. Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

(The case has been heard through video conference) Totally, there are three accused and the petitioner is arrayed as A3. He apprehends arrest at the hands of respondent police for the offence punishable under Section 379 of I.P.C. in Crime No.2493 of 2020 and now, he has filed the above petition seeking for anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with A1 said to have stolen a two wheeler. Hence, the present complaint has been registered against the petitioner and now, he is seeking anticipatory bail.

3. The learned counsel appearing for petitioner would submit that the main accused was arrested by the police and the two wheeler was also recovered from him. He would submit that as the petitioner is a friend of A1, he has been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioner is having bad antecedents similar in nature. He would submit that so far, 18 vehicles were recovered from him and in this case, 3 vehicles were recovered. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. I have heard and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for petitioner as well as Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the records.

6. Taking into consideration of the fact that as the petitioner is having bad antecedents, so far, 18 vehicles were recovered from him and in this case, 3 vehicles were recovered, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

-sd/- 21/01/2021 This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned TRUE COPY Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104.

TO THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,TINDIVANAM POLICE STATION,VILLUPURAM DIST.

2 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE -1, TINDIVANAM.

3 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, VILLUPURAM DIST[FOR INFORMATION] 4 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

CC to M/S.R.SASIKUMAR Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.639/2021 Date :21/01/2021 ksm29/01/2021 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/