Ananda Kumar v. The Sub Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Second day of September Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice K.KALYANASUNDARAM CRL OP(MD) No.16040 of 2015 ANANDA KUMAR ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED No.2 Vs THE STATE REP.BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KEERANUR POLICE STATION, PUDUKOTTAI DISTRICT (CRIME NO. 242 OF 2014) ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.CHETTINAD LEGAL SOLUTIONS Advocate For Respondent : M/S.S.Prabha Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C.
ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner, who is arrayed as accused No.2, in Crime No.242 of 2012 on the file of the respondent police, was arrested on 25.06.2015 and remanded to judicial custody on 01.07.2015 for the alleged offences punishable under Section 414 of I.P.C., and hence, seeks bail.
2. According to the prosecution, that on 30.11.2014, the accused have committed robbery in the City Union Bank, Kuzhithurai Branch in Pudukottai District and taken away 51.250 kgs. of gold jewels from the Bank.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he has been implicated based on the confession of the first accused. It is further submitted that the petitioner along with the other accused were taken into custody by the respondent police on 25.06.2015, but he was remanded only on 01.07.2015 and in the mean while, the sister of this petitioner gave a complaint to the Legal Services Authority, Pudukottai and a Commissioner was appointed to enquire into the petition.
K.KALYANASUNDARAM,J.
akv
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Commissioner has filed a report before the Legal Services Authority stating that the accused were taken into custody on 25.06.2015, but illegally detained to 01.07.2015. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been incarceration for more than 58 days and this application can be considered. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) vehemently opposed the bail petition stating that huge quantity of gold was taken away by the accused and based on the confession of this petitioner, 3.250 grams of
gold was recovered and the investigation is at initial stage.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is not entitled for bail. Hence, this petition is dismissed.
sd/- 02/09/2015 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KEERANUR POLICE STATION, PUDUKOTTAI DISTRICT 2 THE OFFICER INCHARGE, LEGAL SEVICES AUTHORITY, PUDUKOTTAI. 3 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI
4. THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, TRICHY +1. CC to M/S.CHETTINAD LEGAL SOLUTIONS Advocate SR.No. 50952. TS/08.09.2015/2P - 6C SK-SKN/SAR -I ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.16040 of 2015 Date :02/09/2015 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/