S. Ramadoss @ Kutty v. State By,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the First day of December Two Thousand Twenty One PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice M.DHANDAPANI CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.22876 of 2021 S. RAMADOSS @ KUTTY [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ] Vs STATE BY, [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, S1, ST. THOMAS MOUNT POLICE STATION, ST. THOMAS MOUNT, CHENNAI.

CRIME NO.274 OF 2021 For Petitioner : M/S. S.XAVIER FELIX Advocate For Respondent : MR.S.BALAJI, 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 294(b), 324, 341, 392 and 506(ii) of IPC in Crime No.274 of 2021, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is alleged to have committed robbery and threatened the de-facto complainant using filthy language. Hence, the law enforcing agency registered a case against the petitioner.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the earlier bail application was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner is an History sheeter and there are 13 previous cases pending against the petitioner. However, he submitted that the petitioner has filed W.P.No.41012 of 2016 dated 29.11.2016 to remove the name of the petitioner from the history sheet and this Court issued direction https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

to the 2nd and 3rd respondents therein to pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of two months and he also submitted that among the previous cases pending the petitioner, two cases ended in acquittal. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4.The learned Government Advocate would submit 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 on the ground that the petitioner is an history sheeter and there are 9 previous cases pending against the petitioner. He further submitted that in the present case, the property is not recovered from the petitioner. Hence, he vehemently opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and since the earlier anticipatory bail petition was dismissed by this Court and the petitioner himself admitted that there nine previous cases pending against him and he is an habitual offender, and since 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/- 01/12/2021 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, S1, ST. THOMAS MOUNT POLICE STATION, ST. THOMAS MOUNT, CHENNAI.

2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

+1 CC to M/S. S.XAVIER FELIX Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.NO.13865 CRL OP.22876/2021 Date :01/12/2021 JPA 08/12/2021 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/