Yuvaraj v. State Rep By

G. CHANDRASEKHARAN, J., The petitioner namely Yuvaraj, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence under Section 3 (a) of RP (UP) Act, in Crime No.05 of 2023, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated in Crime No.05 of 2023, for the alleged offence under Section 3 (a) of RP (UP) Act. He further submitted that missing report was given by one Arun Kumar and that was not produced by the respondent police. Thus, apprehending arrest, this petition is filed.

3.In response, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposes this petition and submitted that, during the routine vehicle check up, on 02.06.2023, at about 19.00 hours, this petitioner was found in his two wheeler bearing registration No.TN 12 H 0729 with a copper wire roll. When enquired, he was not able to give satisfactory explanation as to its possession. Therefore, the copper wire was seized by the respondent police

with a direction to produce any authority for its possession. Then, petitioner produced a letter written by one (name not known), stating that this wire was taken by the petitioner for replacing the old wire. Doubting the genuineness of this letter, respondent police conducted enquiry and found that this letter is a forged one.

4. Considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.

5. This is the second anticipatory bail petition. The earlier anticipatory bail petition filed by the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.19869 of 2023 was dismissed on 01.08.2023 mainly on the ground that the petitioner is an employee of Southern Railways and that he had illegally stolen 52 KG, 62 sq.m., copper catenary wire from Tiruvallur deport railway station and also for the reason that he had created fabricated letter. It is now informed that, petitioner is absconding and therefore, respondent police is not able to arrest the petitioner.

6. Taking into consideration the offence committed by the petitioner and that, securing him is necessary to take this case to the next

level, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this anticipatory bail petition is dismissed. 31.08.2023 nsa

G. CHANDRASEKHARAN, J., nsa 31.08.2023