Jeeva v. The Sub Inspector Of Police,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Twenty Seventh day of March Two Thousand Nineteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.DHANDAPANI CRL OP(MD) No.4604 of 2019 JEEVA ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED NO.1 Vs STATE REP BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRUMANGALAM TOWN POLICE STATION, MADURAI, (CRIME NO.95/2019) ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : Mr.P.BANUPRASATH Advocate For Respondent : Mr.A.ROBINSON, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C.

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to Judicial custody on 16.02.2019, for the alleged offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC in Crime No.95 of 2019, on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that while the defacto complainant viz., Arivuselvi, was travelling in the bus from Kallipatti to Thirumangalam, as seating was not available, the defacto complainant was standing inside the bus. At that time, a person aged around 45 years old was seated beside the defacto complainant. The petitioner required the cash bag from the defacto complainant, the defacto complainant handed over the cash bag with that petitioner. As soon as Thirumangalam Bus stop reached, the Defacto complainant stepped out of the bus and the petitioner and other accused persons also came down. At the time, the defacto complainant required the cash bag from the petitioner. The petitioner handed over the bag to the defacto complainant. After some time, she opened the bag and found no cash was inside the bag and the cash was missing. Hence the complaint. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he prays for bail. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4.The learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police would submit that the petitioner is having seven previous cases of similar in nature and hence, he objected for grant of bail.

5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the petitioner is having seven previous cases, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

6. Hence, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. sd/- 27/03/2019 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRUMANGALAM TOWN POLICE STATION, MADURAI, 2 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON,MADURAI.

3 ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT,MADURAI.

+1. CC to Mr.P.BANUPRASATH Advocate SR.No.5615 PS/VR/SAR-3/12.04.2019/2P/5C

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.4604 of 2019 Date :27/03/2019 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/