Madras High CourtCRL OP/19053/2020dismissed

M.Manikandan v. The State Rep By,

2020-12-03Honourable Mr Justice M. Nirmal Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 03.12.2020 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR CRL.O.P.No.19053 of 2020 M.Manikandan ... Petitioner -Vs.- The State represented by, ... Respondent Inspector of Police, K-7, ICF Police Station, Chennai District.

(Crime No.550 of 2020) PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code to enlarge the petitioner on bail pending investigation in Crime No.550 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Rajendiran For Respondent : Mr.T.Shunmugarajeswaran Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

(The case has been heard through video conference) The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 08.10.2020 for the offence punishable under Section 392 IPC in Crime No.550 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2.The case of the prosecution as per the defacto complainant viz., Arokiyaraj is that the petitioner and one another have snatched the mobile phone of the defacto complainant and also robbed an amount of Rs.4,500/- from him at the knife point and thereafter they escaped from the scene of occurrence. Hence the complaint.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and due to previous enmity a false case has been foisted against the petitioner. He would submit that the petitioner was arrested on 08.10.2020 and he is in judicial custody for more than 55 days. Hence he prays to grant bail to the petitioner.

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

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent would vehemently oppose stating that the petitioner and one another have snatched the mobile phone of the defacto complainant and also robbed an amount of Rs.4,500/- from him at the knife point. He would further submit that the petitioner has got two previous cases of similar nature.

5.Taking into account the nature of offence and the bad antecedents of the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.

-sd/- 03/12/2020 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 V METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, EGMORE, CHENNAI.

2 THE CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, EGMORE, CHENNAI. [FOR INFORMATION] 3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, K-7,ICF POLICE STATION, CHENNAI DISTRICT.

5 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, PUZHAL.

+1 CC to M/S.M.RAJENDIRAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.NO.7909 CRL OP.19053/2020 Date :03/12/2020 TA-08/12/2020 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/