Manikadan v. The State Rep By,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 28.10.2020

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA Crl.O.P.No.16744 of 2020 Manikandan ... Petitioner Vs.

The State rep. by

...Respondent

The Inspector of Police K-3 Amijikarai Police Station Chennai-106.

Cr.No.454 of 2020.

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code, praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.454 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner : Mr.E.C.Ramesh 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 alleged offences under Section 395 of IPC, in Crime No.454 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution as per the de-facto complainant one Selvaraj is that he is a resident of NSK Nagar, Arumbakkam and that on 18.01.2020, at 1.30 p.m, when he and his brother were sleeping in front of his house, one Karthick who belongs to the same area along with six other accused persons came to his house and by threatening him with patta knife snatched a cell phone and money purse and thereafter,fled away from the scene of occurrence.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that the main accused has been arrested and they have been released on bail. Therefore, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioner is a member of rowdy gang in the Arumbakkam area and he along with other accused persons entered the house of the defacto complainant and threatened him with patta knife and robbed a cell phone and money purse, in one case and in another case, they entered into the house of the de-facto complainant with patta knife and other weapons and snatched 7 sovereigns of gold jewels. He would further submit that the petitioner is an habitual offender and there are two previous cases against the petitioner. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and there are two previous cases against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.

-sd/- 28/10/2020 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, K-3, AMIJIKARAI POLICE STATION, CHENNAI-106.

2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

+1 CC to M/S.E.C.RAMESH Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.NO. 7119 CRL OP.16744/2020 Date :28/10/2020 TA-03/11/2020 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/