Ramesh v. The State Rep By, The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 26.03.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Ramesh

...Petitioner/Accused

Vs.

State rep by The Inspector of Police, Keelpalur Police Station, Ariyalur District.

(Crime No.66 of 2022) ...

Respondent PRAYER: This criminal original petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS to enlarge the petitioner on bail in C.C.No.259 of 2023 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ariyalur. For Petitioner :

Mr.S.Saravanakumar For Respondent :

Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Government Advocate (Crl. Side) Page No.1 of 4

ORDER

The petitioner, who is facing trial for the offence under Section 392 of IPC in C.C.No.259 of 2023 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ariyalur and remanded to judicial custody on 10.07.2024, seeks bail.

2.It is the case of the prosecution that on 17.03.2022, while the defacto complainant was in her house, the petitioner had snatched 9 sovereigns of gold chain from her. Hence, the case. 3.This is the second bail application filed by the petitioner. The earlier bail application was dismissed by my learned predecessor Hon'ble Justice A.D.Jagadish Chandira, by making the following observations: "4.Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the respondent Police and perused the materials available on record including the previous case details of Page No.2 of 4

the petitioner produced by the respondent and on considering the antecedents of the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner." 4.The matter is listed before this Court pursuant to the orders passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Crl.O.P.No.31787 of 2024 on 04.03.2025.

5.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is in custody from 10.07.2024 and hence, considering the period of incarceration, he may be released on bail. 6.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) reiterated the prosecution case and on instruction would submit that the prosecution had examined three witnesses and the trial is likely to be completed within a period of three months.

7.Considering the fact that the petitioner has 44 previous cases, this Page No.3 of 4

Court is not inclined to consider the second bail application at this stage. However, the petitioner cannot be incarcerated for an indefinite period. Hence, the Trial Court is directed to complete the trial as expeditiously as possible. If the trial is not completed within a period of three months, the petitioner is at liberty to renew the bail application. 8.With the above observations, these Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.

26.03.2025 ata Page No.4 of 4