Sutti Murugan @ Murugan v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the First day of March Two Thousand Eighteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice R.PONGIAPPAN CRL OP(MD) No.3248 of 2018 SUTTI MURUGAN @ MURUGAN ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.2 Vs THE STATE REP BY ITS THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE KALAKKAD POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT, IN CRIME NO.487/2017 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.M.KARUNANITHI Advocate For Respondent : MR.A.ROBINSON, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner, who is arrayed as accused No.2, apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent Police for the offence punishable under Sections 397 of I.P.C., registered in Crime No.487 of 2017, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that when the defacto complainant standing near the occurrence place, the petitioner along with other accused threatened the defacto complainant using sickle and snatched a sum of Rs.1,100/- and a watch worth about Rs.7,000/- from him. Hence, the complaint has been lodged by the defacto complainant.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case, he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and he is in no way connected with the offences, hence he pleads for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent Police submitted that investigation is still pending and he has 13 previous cases.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5.The submissions made by the counsel appearing on either side

are considered. It is alleged that on 13.12.2017, at about 13.00 hours, when the defacto complainant standing near the occurrence place, the petitioner along with one another accused approached the defacto complainant and demanded money from him. Since the defacto complainant refused to pay the money, the petitioner using sickle threatened him and snatched a sum of Rs.1,100/- and one watch. Even though the properties are recovered through one another accused, considering the fact that the petitioner is having 13 previous cases, in which 5 cases are still alive, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

sd/- 01/03/2018 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE KALAKKAD POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT 2 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.3248 of 2018 Date :01/03/2018 SMA/CSL/SAR-3/07.03.2018:2P/3C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/