G.Ramki v. State Rep. By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 29.06.2020

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.O.P.No.9656 of 2020 G.Ramki, S/o.Gowthaman, Aladi Mariamman Street, Kidaramkondan, Thiruvarur District.

... Petitioner Vs.

State Rep. by The Sub-Inspector of Police, Vaippur Police Station, Thiruvarur District.

Cr.No.279 of 2020 ... Respondent Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of apprehending arrest in the Crime No.279 of 2020 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Vaippur Police Station, Thiruvarur District. For Petitioner : Mr.P.Muthamizh Selvakumar For Respondent : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz, Additional Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 341, 387 and 506(ii) of IPC in Crime No.279 of 2020, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 07.05.2020, while the de-facto complainant returning to his home in TVS XL after selling snacks in the local shops, the petitioner and his friend one Alagiri intercepted him and threatened to give money. When the de-facto complainant refused to give money, the accused at knife point took Rs.3,200/- from him and threatened with dire consequences, if he revealed to anyone and escaped from the place of occurrence. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that as per the prosecution, the incident happened on 07.05.2020, but the complaint was lodged only after 3 days and there is no proper explanation for the delay. The respondent https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

police never made a detailed investigation to the complaint. Moreover, A1 was arrested and enlarged on bail. Hence, he seeks to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner is arrayed as A2 in this case. The petitioner along with A1 robbed Rs.3,200/- from the de-facto complainant at knife point and threatened him with dire consequences. The petitioner has no previous case. Hence, he vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. It is seen that the petitioner along with another person have snatched Rs.3,200/- from the de-facto complainant at knife point and also threatened to kill, if the same was reported to anyone. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatoy bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original petition is dismissed. -sd/- 29/06/2020 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, THIRUVARUR 2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

3 THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VAIPPUR POLICE SATION, THIRUVARUR DISTRICT, CC to P.MUTHAMIZHSELVAKUMAR Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.9656/2020 Date :29/06/2020 rd 28/07/2020 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/