D.Dinesh @ Vijay Dinesh v. The State Rep

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 06.06.2023

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA D.Dinesh @ Vijay Dinesh ... Petitioner Vs.

State Represented by The Inspector of Police, N-3, Muthialpet Police Station (Crime), Chennai.

Crime No.346 of 2022 ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.346 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police pending investigation. For Petitioner : Mr. K.Subburam For Respondent : Mr. C.E.Pratap Government Advocate (Crl. Side) 1/6

O R D E R

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 19.05.2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 170, 120-B, 395, 149 and 34 of IPC in Crime No.346 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is doing business in Burma Bazarr. While being so, on 13.12.2022 around 09.30 p.m., the petitioner along with other accused, went to the shop of the defacto complainant and posed themselves as NIA Officials and had taken away 6 mobile phones, laptop, CPU and cash of Rs.10 lakhs from the shop and also another sum of Rs.10 lakhs from the premises where the staffs of the defacto complainant are residing. 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 based on the confession recorded from the other accused. He further submitted that the similarly placed co-accused/A4 has been granted bail by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.2803 of 2023 by order dated 08.02.2023 and that 2/6

the petitioner has been suffering incarceration from 19.05.2023. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) vehemently opposed for grant of bail to the petitioner stating there are totally 16 accused involved in this case and the petitioner is arrayed as A5. The petitioner along with other accused, by introducing themselves as NIA Official, have robbed a sum of Rs.2,30,00,000/- out of which, a sum of Rs.1,67,00,000/- has been recovered and from the petitioner, a sum of Rs.5 lakhs has been recovered. He further submitted that some of the accused are still absconding and he would oppose for grant of bail.

5. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the respondent police and perused the materials available on record including the FIR.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner and also of the fact that the similarly placed co-accused/A4 has been enlarged on bail by this Court and part of the stolen property has been recovered, this Court is inclined to grant of bail to the petitioner with certain conditions. 3/6

7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) with two sureties out of which, one surety must be a blood surety, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned XVI Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, and on further conditions that: [a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police everyday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of three months and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation;

[c] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

[d] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial; 4/6

[e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560]; [f] If the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.

06.06.2023 ksa-2 To

1. The XVI Metropolitan Magistrate, G.T. Chennai.

2. The Inspector of Police, N-3, Muthialpet Police Station (Crime), Chennai.

3. The Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.

4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

5/6

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA,J., ksa-2 06.06.2023 6/6