Sugumar v. State Rep By
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA , J.
The petitioner who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Section 379 of IPC, in Crime No.279 of 2022.
2. The case of the prosecution as per the defacto complainant J.Ameerkhan is that on 15.11.2022 at about 4.15 a.m., when he was standing near the Prepaid Auto Stand, near the Chennai Metro Bus Stand (Central), three unknown persons have snatched Rs.6,000/- and a mobile phone from him. Hence the case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case, since he happens to be a friend of arrested accused. He would further submit that this is the second petition for anticipatory bail and the
earlier petition in Crl.M.P.No.22463 of 2022 was dismissed by the trial Court on 21.11.2022. Therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
4. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent would submit that the petitioner along with other accused committed theft of Rs.6,000/- and mobile Phone from the de facto complainant. He would further submit that the trial Court dismissed the petitioner's earlier anticipatory bail petition in Crl.M.P.No.22463 of 2022 dated 21.11.2022. He would further submit that the petitioner is a habitual offender, against him, there are three previous cases and there is no change of circumstances. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned Counsel on both sides and also taking note of the fact that the petitioner is a habitual offender and earlier the trial Court had dismissed the anticipatory bail petition of the
petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 01.12.2022 arb
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA , J.
arb 01.12.2022