Thulasi @ Thulasiraj v. State Rep.By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 27.08.2020

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA Crl.OP.Nos.12093 & 12094 of 2020 Thulasi @ Thulasiraj ... Petitioner in both Crl.O.P.Nos.

Vs.

The State rep by The Inspector of Police, Vengal Police Station, Thiruvallur District. ... Respondent in both Crl.O.P.Nos. Common Prayer: Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime Nos.496 and 459 of 2019 respectively on the file of the respondent police.

In both Crl.O.P.Nos.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sasikumar For Respondent : Mr.M.Mohammad Riyaz Additional Public Prosecutor C O M M O N O R D E R (This case has been heard through video conference) The petitioner who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences publishable under Sections 427, 392 & 394 IPC and Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act, in Crime No.496 of 2019 and under Sections 341 & 392 IPC, in Crime No.459 of 2019, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution as per the defacto complainant in Crl.O.P.No.12093 of 2020 is that the petitioner along with other accused has waylaid the defacto complainant, namely Kabil, S/o. Gurunathan, while he was going in his Mini Lorry and grabbed Rs.5,000/- from him and assaulted him. Hence the complaint.

3. The case of the prosecution as per the defacto complainant in Crl.O.P.No.12094 of 2020 is that the petitioner along with other accused has waylaid the defacto complainant, namely, Sathishkumar, S/o. Jayapal, while he was going in his Tata Ace and grabbed Rs.5,700/- from him and assaulted him. Hence the complaint.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioner waylaid the defacto complainants and robbed Rs.5,000/- and Rs.5,700/- respectively and submitted that this is the second anticipatory bail application and the earlier application has been dismissed on the ground that the petitioner has six previous cases of similar nature. However, he opposed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

6. Taking into consideration the facts and submissions of the learned Counsel and the fact that the petitioner has six previous cases of similar nature of robbery, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.

-sd/- 27/08/2020 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.I, THIRUVALLUR.

2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VENGAL POLICE STATION, THIRUVALLUR DISTRICT.

CC to M/S.R.SASIKUMAR Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.12093 & 12094 OF 2020 Date :27/08/2020 MK:11/09/2020 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/