Gaja @ Gajendran v. The State Rep By Its,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 04.05.2020

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.O.P.No.7415 of 2020 Gaja @ Gajendran ... Petitioner Vs.

State Rep. By ... Respondent The Inspector of Police, Peerkankaranai Police Station, Chennai.

Cr. No.102 of 2020.

Prayer:

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. to enlarge the petitioner on bail pending investigation in Crime No.102 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Senthilvel For Respondent : Mr.M.Mohammed Riyaz, Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 05.03.2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 294(b), 384 & 506(2) of I.P.C., in Crime No. 102 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 04.03.2020 at about 11 a.m., the defacto complainant lodged a complaint alleging that the defacto complainant is running the mobile cart tiffen shop at GST Road, Vel Nagar Bus Stop Signal. At that time, the petitioner waylaid the defacto complainant, abused with filthy language and robbed Rs.400/- at knife point. Hence, this complaint.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is not involved in the above alleged offence and he is no way connected with the offence as alleged by the prosecution and he did not commit any offence. Further he submits that the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

petitioner is in judicial custody for the past 59 days and hence, he seeks bail for the petitioner.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl. Side) submitted that the petitioner is a habitual offender and he involved in more than 25 cases. He was already detained under Goondas on two occasions and thereafter, the detention order was quashed. He also submitted that if the petitioner let out on bail, again he indulge in same kind of crimes. Hence, he vehemently opposed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

5. Considering the above facts and circumstances, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the petition stands dismissed.

-sd/- 04/05/2020 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 PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE, CHENGALPATTU, KANCHIPURAM DISTRICT.

2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PEERKANKARANAI POLICE STATION, CHENNAI.

4 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, PUZHAL.

CC to MR.S.SENTHILVEL, Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.7415/2020 Date :04/05/2020 TA-17/06/2020 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/