Thambiraj @ Rajkumar v. State Rep By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 29.10.2020 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA Crl.O.P.No.17048 of 2020 THAMBIRAJ @ RAJKUMAR

...Petitioner

Vs.

State Represented by:

...Respondent

The Inspector of Police (Law ad Order) J-9 Thuraipakkam Police Station Thuraipakkam Chennai - 600 097.

(Crime No.265 of 2019) PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code to enlarge the petitioner/accused on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.265 of 2019 on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Moorthi For Respondent : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

(The case has been heard through video conference) The petitioner who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent Police for the offence punishable under Sections 342, 324, 397, 364-A and 506(2) of IPC in Crime .No.265 of 2019, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution as per the defacto complainant Mohammed Thahir is that he was doing real estate business along with one Ramakrishnan and Durairaj and he had some problems in his business. Therefore, he had approached one Johnson Elango, the first accused herein and that the said Jonson Elango assured the defacto him that he would solve his problems. Thereafter, on 10.05.2020 at about 8:00 a.m., the Johnson Elango/A1 had called the defcafto complainant over phone and told him to meet him at Ezhilagam. Accordingly, the defacto complainant had gone to the said place along with one Muniraj / A2 by his car and met him. Thereafter, A1 also got into the car and taken them to a newly constructed apartment at Thuraipakkam, Manthoppu Pillaiyar Koil Street wherein,

the 1st and 2nd accused along with 3 unknown persons, threatened the defacto complainant at gun point and demanded a sum of Rs.1 Crore from him and also attacked him with backside of the pistol, iron rod and electric cables pursuant to which, the defacto complainant made a call to his wife and told her to bring the demanded amount to Anna Square. Accordingly, when the wife of the defacto complainant had brought the money, the accused taken away the amount along with his money purse, ATM Card and the contract documents made between Ramakrishnan and Durairaj and escaped from the scene of occurrence. Hence, the complaint.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that the name of the petitioner is not found place in the F.I.R. However, he has been falsely implicated in this case based on the confession of A1. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail. 4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police would vehemently oppose stating that the petitioner along with other accused kidnapped the defacto complainant and obtained a sum of Rs.1 Crore as ransom from the wife of the defacto complainant. He would further submit that so far, A1 has been arrested from whom a sum of Rs.20.40 lakhs has been recovered and the other accused are yet to be arrested. He would further submit the petitioner is a habitual offender against whom there are twenty two previous cases pending as detailed below; S.No .

Crime Number Offence Thuthukudi District North 1215/1988 148, 149, 307 IPC Chennai Egmore 305/96 365, 348, 324, 384, 506(ii) IPC r/w 120 (b) IPC Egmore Station, Chennai 530/96 341, 332, 353, 307, 506(ii) r/w 28 arms act & Section 3 r/w 25(1)(B)(A) Indian Arms Act.

Chennai Neelankarai Police 338/97 392 IPC Chennai Amainthakarai 2310/97 392, 397, 506(ii) IPC 4 & 5 of Explosive Substance Act, 1908

Chennai Egmore 1140/98 385, 506(ii) IPC r/w 9(1) of Explosive Substance Act, 1908 Chennai Egmore 1142/1998 353, 332, 307, 506 (ii) IPC r/w 4 and of Explosive Substances Act, Chennai Egmore 201/1999 147, 148, 341, 302, 506(ii) IPC r/w 149, 120(b) IPC Thoothukudi District, Murappunadu Police 262/2000 364, 302, 201 IPC Arms Act Chennai Central Crime Branch (CCB), 896/03 25(1)(1a)(B) r/w 3 & 7 of Arms Act Coimbatore District, Thudiyalur Police 1239/2004 389, 399, 402 IPC Chennai Ambathur 1116/04 25(a) IA Act, 1959 r/w 41 & 102 Cr.P.C Chennai Villivakkam Police 1939/04 397, 511 IPC Chennai Villivakkam Police 280/06 364(a), 342, 307 & 120(b) IPC & r/w 5 of IA act Coimbatore District, Kovilpalayam Police 10/07 147, 365 & 302 IPC r/w 25 of Indian Arms Act Coimbatore District, Kovilpalayam Police 11/07 148, 364, 342, 384 IPC r/w 25 of Indian Arms Act Chennai City, Basin Bridge 426/07 364, 342, 323, 307, 506(II) IPC r/w 27 of Arms Act, 1959 Madurai District, Koodalpudur Police 386/2008 448, 307 IPC r/w 25 (1)(A) of the Arms Act, 1959

Madurai Karimedu 611/10 25(1)(A) Arms Act 1959 r/w 387, 506 (i) IPC Thoothukudi District, North 296/2010 294(b), 384, 324, 307, 506(i) IPC and 25(1-A) Arms Act Annanagar Station, Madurai City 1540/11 353, 506(ii) IPC & 25(1)(a) Arms Act and 5 of ES Act, Coimbatore City, E2 Peelamedu 34/2016 365, 307, 395 IPC r/w 397, 506(i) IPC and 25(1XA) of Arms Act

5. Taking into account the nature of offence and the fact that the petitioner is a habitual offender against whom there are several cases pending and only A1 has been arrested so far and the other accused are still absconding, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.

-sd/- 29/10/2020 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 INSPECTOR OF POLICE ( LAW AND ORDER) J-9, THURAIPAKKAM POLICE STATION, THURAIPAKKAM, CHENNAI-97.

2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

CC to M/S. N.MOORTHI Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.17048/2020 Date :29/10/2020 TA-09/11/2020