A.Manikandan v. State Rep By,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 13.10.2020

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA Crl.O.P.No.16197 of 2020 A.Manikandan ... Petitioner Vs.

State Rep. By The Inspector of Police, Uthukuli Police Station, Tiruppur District.

(Cr.No.1179 of 2020) ... Respondent Prayer:

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Connection with the Crime No.1179 of 2020 pending on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner : Mr.C.S.Saravanan For Respondent : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz, Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

(This case has been heard through video conference) The petitioner who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Section 380 of IPC altered into 454, 380 of IPC, in Crime No.1179 of 2020, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution as per the defacto complainant is that the petitioner along with other accused have entered into the shop of the defacto complainant and addressing himself as Health Officials, committed theft of RS.15,000/- from him. Hence, the complaint.

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. He would further submit that A2 has been arrested and enlarged on bail. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

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

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioner is a habitual offender and he has one previous case, which is also similar in nature and the same was registered before the Erode District. He would further submit that the petitioner and other accused posing themselves as Health Inspector committed robbery of Rs.15,000/- from the defacto complainant and the same has been recovered from A2.

Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Taking into consideration the facts and submissions of the learned Counsel and also the fact that the petitioner has one previous cases, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. -sd/- 13/10/2020 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 DISTRICT MUNSIF CUM JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, UTHUKULI.

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE TIRUPPUR [FOR INFORMATION] 3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, UTHUKULI POLICE STATION, TIRUPPUR DISTRICT.

CC to M/S.C.S.SARAVANAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.16197/2020 Date :13/10/2020 cs 23/10/2020 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/