M.Veeramai @ Veeramanikandan v. State Rep. By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 20.11.2020

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA Crl.O.P.No.17788 of 2020 M. Veeramani @ Veeramanikandam ... Petitioner Vs.

The State Represented by, The Inspector of Police, Peruumanallur Police Station, Coimbatore-District (Cr.No.1942 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.1942 of 2020 pending on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner : Mr.R. Radha Pandian 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 Sections 342, 385 and 397of IPC, in Crime No.1942 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 he is engaged in the business of selling bedsheets and the petitioner has approached the defacto complainant that he is manufacturing bed sheets and thereafter he made a phone call and informed him to come to a particular place and when the petitioner came to the spot he robbed cash Rs.3,000/- and 1.5 soverigns of gold chain from the defacto complainant. 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 as the defacto complainant him for the purchase of bed sheets and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioner made a phone call and invited the defacto complainant and thereafter robbed cash Rs.3,000/- and 1.5 soverigns of gold https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

chain. He would further submit that there is one previous case pending against the petitioner and the co-accused persons are still in custody. Hence, he vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned additional public prosecutor and the co-accused persons are still in custody and there is one previous case pending against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Accordingly, this Criminal Original petition stands dismissed. -sd/- 20/11/2020 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 JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, AVINASHI 2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

3 INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERUMANALLUR POLICE STATION, COIMBATORE DISTRICT.

CC to R.RADHA PANDIAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.17788/2020 Date :20/11/2020 RVR 07/12/2020 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/