Madras High CourtCRL OP/3048/2022dismissed

Thiyagarajan v. State Rep.By

2022-02-25Honourable Mrs Justice T.V.Thamilselvi3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Twenty Fifth day of February Two Thousand Twenty Two PRESENT The Hon`ble Mrs Justice T.V. THAMILSELVI CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.3048 of 2022 IN S.C.NO.324 of 2017 (ON THE FILE OF SESSIONS JUDGE, MAGALIR NEETHIMANDRAM) THIYAGARAJAN [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ] Vs STATE REP.BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, J6 TIRUVANMIYUR POLICE STATION, CHENNAI.

CRIME NO.2298/2017 For Petitioner : M/S.A.MANIKANDAN Advocate For Respondent : M/S.L.BASKARAN, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR BAIL 439 Cr.P.C.

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 26.08.2021 for the offence under sections 379, 302 r/w 34 of IPC, in Crime Number 2298 of 2017 on the file of the respondent police seeks bail.

2. It is a jumped bail. The petitioner was arrested on 26.08.2021 pursuant to the Non Bailable Warrant issued against him.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is the case of the year 2017 and he was regularly appearing before the Court. Thereafter, the petitioner due to health issues, he was unable to appear before the Court and thereby, the learned Judge ordered Non Bailable Warrant against the petitioner following which, the petitioner was arrested on 26.08.2021 and that he has been suffering

incarceration for more than three months from 26.08.2021. He further submitted that the petitioner is prepared to appear regularly before the trial Court and ready to co-operate for the trial. Hence, he seeks for grant of bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) raised objection stating that this case is of the year 2017 and the petitioner has got 6 previous cases. He further submits that there was a direction by this Court on 15.03.2019 to dispose the case within three months, due to the long absence of the petitioner, the trial Court was not able to conduct trial and if the petitioner is released on bail, there is every possibility that the petitioner getting abscond and the trial would get stalled. He further submits that the petitioner is habitual offender and he identified the old women who live alone in the house and committed robbery. Furthermore, the case is ripe for trial. Hence, he vehemently opposed for grant of bail.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by both counsel and also considering the gravity of offence committed by the petitioner and the petitioner is having previous case, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. -sd/- 25/02/2022 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 SESSIONS JUDGE, MAGALIR NEETHIMANDRAM, CHENNAI 2 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, PUZHAL, CHENNAI.

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, J6 TIRUVANMIYUR POLICE STATION, CHENNAI.

4 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

CC to M/S.A.MANIKANDAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.3048/2022 Date :25/02/2022 RW 03/03/2022