← Library
Madras High CourtCRL OP/14737/2020dismissed

Vignesh v. State Rep By,

2020-10-22Honourable Mr Justice P. Velmurugan2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 22.10.2020

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN Crl.O.P.Nos. 14737, 14739 and 14752 of 2020

1. Vignesh ... Petitioners in all Crl.O.Ps

2. B.Prem Kumar

Versus

State by ... Respondents in all Crl.O.P's The Inspector of Police, K-6, T.P. Chatram Police Station, Chennai.

Cr.No.463, 442 & 270 of 2020.

Common Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. to enlarge the petitioners on bail, pending investigation of the case in Crime Nos.463, 442 and 270 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioners : Mr.V. Karthikeyan For Respondent : Mr.T.Shunmugarajeswaran GovernmentAdvocate (Crl.Side) COMMON ORDER The petitioners who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 11.08.2020 for the offences publishable under Section 379 of IPC in Crime Nos.463, 442 and 270 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution as per defacto complainant/Pandu in Crl.O.P.No.14737 of 2020 is that on 25.07.2020 the petitioners snatched the mobile phone of the defacto complainant. Hence, the complaint.

3. The case of the prosecution as per defacto complainant/Venkatesan in Crl.O.P.No.14739 of 2020 is that on 30.06.2020 the petitioners snatched the mobile phone of the defacto complainant. Hence, the complaint.

4.The case of the prosecution as per defacto complainant/Esakkimuthu in Crl.O.P.No.14752 of 2020 is that on 28.05.2020 the petitioners snatched the mobile phone of the defacto complainant. Hence, the complaint.

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

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that the petitioners have been in judicial custody from 11.08.2020. Hence, he sought for grant of bail to the petitioners.

6. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that on 30.06.2020 the petitioners snatched the mobile phone of the defacto complainant. He would further submit that the petitioners are habitual offenders and they have been involving in committing theft of cell phones and snatching chain from the public. He would further submit that the investigation is in preliminary stage and if the petitioners are released on bail, they may be committing the same offence. Hence, he opposed to grant bail to the petitioners. 7.It is seen that now a days some of the youngsters in order to spend money lavishly they are snatching chains and cell phones from pedestrians. However, considering the facts of the case and the nature of offence committed by the petitioners, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, these Criminal Original petitions are dismissed.

-sd/- 22/10/2020 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 METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, NO.V, EGMORE, CHENNAI.

2 THE CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, EGMORE, CHENNAI. [FOR INFORMATION] 3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, K-6, T.P.CHATRAM POLICE STATION, CHENNAI.

5 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, PUZHAL, CHENNAI.

CC to M/S.S.V.KARTHIKEYAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges Crl.O.P.Nos. 14737, 14739 and 14752 of 2020 Date :22/10/2020 TA-02/11/2020 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/