Arun Kumar v. State Rep By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Fourth day of October Two Thousand Twenty One PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice M.DHANDAPANI CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.18396 of 2021 ARUN KUMAR [ PETITIONERS / ACCUSED ] Vs STATE REP BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, B-1, NORTH BEACH POLICE STATION, CHENNAI DISTRICT.

(CRIME NO.97 OF 2021) For Petitioner : M/S.C.ARIVAZHAGAN, Advocate For Respondent : MR.C.E.PRATAP, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner, who /apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 143, 147, 452, 353, 183, 187, 427, 294(b) of IPC r/w Section 133 of Customs Act, 1962 in Crime No.97 of 2021, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with other accused persons doing businesses in the name of One plus technologies. When the officials of Customs conducted search in the above said company, they found some goods, documents and a bag of currency. During the search, the petitioner and other accused persons prevented the officials from conducting the search and abused the officials using filthy language. Hence, the Law Enforcing Agency registered a case against the petitioner and other accused persons. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in this case and he is working in another company. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submits that when the customs officials conducted the search, the petitioners along with other accused persons prevented the officials from conducting the search and abused them using filthy language. He further submits that this is the second anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner and this Court has already dismissed the earlier anticipatory bail application of the petitioner. 5.Considering the gravity of the offence and the earlier anticipatory bail petition was dismissed by this Court and there is no change of circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6.Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed. -sd/- 04/10/2021 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, B-1, NORTH BEACH POLICE STATION, CHENNAI DISTRICT.

2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

CC to M/S.C.ARIVAZHAGAN, Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.18396/2021 Date :04/10/2021 JPA 20/10/2021 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/