Samsu @ Samsudeen v. State By The Inspector Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.06.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA Crl.O.P. No.8196 of 2020 Samsu @ Samsudeen ... Petitioner Vs.
The State represented by The Inspector of Police, D-4, Kuniyamuthur Police Station, Coimbatore District.
(Crime No.870/2020) ... Respondent Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of petitioner's arrest concerned in Crime No.870 of 2020 pending on the file of the respondent police.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.N.Arunkumar For Respondent : Mr.K.Prabakar Additional Public Prosecutor
O R D E R
(The case has been heard through Video Conference) The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 170, 454, 363, 395 and 397 of IPC in Crime No.870 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that this petitioner is ranked as A8. The petitioner along with other accused joined together and posed themselves as investigation officers and conducted search the complainant room and found kanja. Thereafter, they demanded money for not taking action against them. Further, they threatened the defacto complainant by showing knife and snatched the ATM card and taken the Laptop from the defacto complainant's room and thereby committed the offence. Hence, the complaint.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that totally 10 accused were involved in this case. The main accused/A1 was posing himself as Police Official and conducted search in the defacto complainant's room and seized kanja and by showing the same, the first accused joined with other accused started to threaten the defacto complainant and demanded money from him. Further, the accused persons received money from the defacto complainant and they had taken laptop, apple i-phone and bike from the defacto complainant's room. This petitioner is concerned, he threatened the defacto complainant by using knife. All the accused persons have actively participated in this crime. Further, he would submit that the investigation is pending. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 5.Considering the serious nature of the offence has been committed by the accused persons, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
-sd/- 05/06/2020 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 JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, NO.VII, COIMBATORE.
2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COIMBATORE [FOR INFORMATION] 3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.
4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, D-4, KUNIYAMUTHUR POLICE STATION, COIMBATORE DISTRICT.
CC to M/S. S.N.ARUNKUMAR Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.8196/2020 Date :05/06/2020 MK:29/06/2020 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/