Madras High CourtCRL OP/1029/2021dismissed

A.Prabakaran v. State Rep By

2021-01-27Honourable Mr Justice V. Bharathidasan2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 27.01.2021 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. BHARATHIDASAN Crl.O.P.No.1029 of 2021 A.Prabakaran ... Petitioner Vs.

The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, M-3 Puzhal Police Station Puzhal, Chennai.

(Crime No.2860 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.2860 of 2020 pending on the file of the respondent.

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Ganesha Moorthy For Respondent : Mr.S.Karthikeyan Addl. Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

(The case has been heard through video conference) The petitioner is a sole accused. He apprehends arrest at the hands of respondent police for the offence punishable under Section 379 and 511 of I.P.C. in Crime No.2860 of 2020 on the file of respondent police and now, he has filed the above petition seeking for anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner said to have broke open the windscreen of a car and also tried to steal the car. 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 he is an innocent person and he is no way connected with the alleged offence made out in the complaint. He would also submit that he has been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioner is an habitual offender and he is having two preivous https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

cases. He would submit that he used to broken the windscreen of a car and stole the articles in the car. 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 an habitual offender and having two previous cases against him, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. -sd/- 27/01/2021 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 1.THE DISTRICT MUNSIF CUM JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MADHAVARAM,CHENNAI.

2.THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, TIRUVALLUR DIST.[FOR INFORMATION] 3.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, M-3 PUZHAL POLICE STATION, PUZHAL, CHENNAI.

4.THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

CC to M/S GANESHA MOORTHY B. Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.1029/2021 Date :27/01/2021 ksm02/02/2021 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/