P.Madhavan v. State Rep.By
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18.01.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN Crl.O.P.Nos.20770 & 20798 of 2020 1.P.Madhavan 2.Krishnamoorthi
...Petitioners in both Crl.OPs.
Vs.
State rep. by Inspector of Police, Cheyyar Police Station, Thiruvannamalai District.
(Crime No.3128/2020) ...Respondent in Crl.OP.No.20770/2020 State rep. by Inspector of Police, Brammadesam Police Station, Thiruvannamalai District.
(Crime No.1626/2020)
...Respondent in Crl.OP.No.20798/2020
Prayer: Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in Cr.Nos.3128 & 1626 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioners in both Crl.OPs.
: Mr.R.Rajasekar For Respondent in both Crl.OPs.
: Mrs.M.Prabhavathi Additional Public Prosecutor C O M M O N O R D E R (These cases have been heard through video conference) The petitioners, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody for the offence punishable under Sections 392 of IPC in Crime No.3128 of 2020 and for the offence punishable under Sections 394 & 397 of IPC in Crime No.1626 of 2020 on the file of the respondents police, seek bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners are A1 and A2. There are two occurrence and the first occurrence had taken place on 29.09.2020, in which, the petitioners had snatched 10 sovereigns of gold chain from the de facto complainant and escaped
from the scene of occurrence. Thereafter, once again the petitioners have involved in the similar offence of cell phone snatching on 10.11.2020 and attacked the de facto complainant with knife and caused injuries. The petitioners caught red handed and arrested on the same day and remanded to judicial custody.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He would submit that the petitioners were arrested on 10.11.2020 and they are in custody for more than 70 days and hence, he prays to grant bail to the petitioners.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would vehemently oppose stating that the petitioners are habitual offenders.
5. Taking into consideration the facts and submissions of learned counsel on either side and the fact that the petitioners are habitual offenders involving in chain snatching, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners.
6. These Criminal Original Petitions are dismissed accordingly. -sd/- 18/01/2021 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, CHEYYAR POLICE STATION, THIRUVANNAMALAI DISTRICT.
2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, BRAMMADESAM POLICESTATION, THIRUVANNAMALAI DISTRICT.
3 THE OFFICER INCHARGE POLUR PRISON,THIRUVANNAMALAI DISTRICT
4 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.
CC to M/S. R.RAJASEKAR Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.20770/2020 Date :18/01/2021 ksm22/01/2021