Ramesh v. The State Rep.By

Crl.O.P.No.9675 of 2023 Crl.O.P.No.9675 of 2023 A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.

The petitioner who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 17.02.2023 for the offence under Section 392 IPC in Crime No.20 of 2023 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution as per the defacto complainant Maideen Rawoothar is that on 20.01.2023, as per his employer, he deposited amounts in various ATM centers and after depositing amount in the Indian Bank ATM, Eldoms Road, he was having Rs.4 lakhs with him and while he was going to start his two wheeler, 3 persons who were aged about 30, 35, 28 who could be identified, threatened the defacto complainant with Machete and robbed the sum of Rs.4 lakhs from him. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Further, the name of the petitioner does not find place in the FIR and later, since the petitioner has got few previous cases against him, he was falsely implicated in this case and arrested on 17.02.2023 and that he has been in judicial custody for more than 60 days. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police would submit that the petitioner is a habitual offender and history sheeter rowdy against whom number of cases pending in various police stations in Chennai City. On 20.01.2023, the petitioner along with 2 of his associates, had waylaid the defacto complainant and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.No.9675 of 2023 A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.

ksa-2 threatened him with Machete and robbed a sum of Rs.4 lakhs from him when he was coming out from the ATM Center. Further, the Identification Parade was conducted and the defacto complainant has also identified the petitioner. He would further submit that the investigation has been completed and the respondent police is likely to file the charge sheet shortly and the case would be taken for trial immediately. Hence, he vehemently opposed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

5. In view of the nature of offence and the bad antecedents of the petitioner and also of the fact that the investigation has been completed and the charge sheet is likely to be filed shortly, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 28.04.2023 ksa-2 Crl.O.P.No.9675 of 2023 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis