Muthumari v. State Rep By

Crl.O.P.No.1728 of 2023 Crl.O.P.No.1728 of 2023 T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Section 379 of IPC in Cr.No.100 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant came for his relation's funeral ceremony and at that time, the Petitioner and other two accused have committed theft of 7 sovereigns of gold jewels worth about Rs.70,000/- Hence, the complaint.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submit that the co-accused 1 and 2 were arrested and enlarged on bail. Hence, the learned counsel prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) would submit that totally there are three accused, the petitioner is arrayed as A3. He further https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.No.1728 of 2023 T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

vsn submit that there are three previous cases pending as against this petitioner. He further submitted that the property had not been recovered. Therefore, he vehemently opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by both counsel and also considering the fact that three previous cases are pending as against this petitioner and the property has not been recovered and also considering the fact that there is possibility of tampering the witnesses and hampering the investigation, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. However, the trial court is directed to complete the trial and dispose of the case within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

30.01.2023 vsn Crl.O.P.No.1728 of 2023 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis