Laxmanan v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Second day of April Two Thousand Nineteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.DHANDAPANI CRL OP(MD) No.4938 of 2019 1 LAXMANAN 2 ARUN @ ARUNPANDI ... PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED RANK NO.1 AND 4 Vs STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE THIRUCHULI POLICE STATION, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT.

CRIME NO.187/2018 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioners: Mr.S.J.CHAKKARAVARTHY, Advocate For Respondent : Mr.K.SUYAMBULINGA BHARATHI, Government Advocate(Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners who are apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence under Section 394 of IPC @ 397 of IPC in Crime No.187 of 2018, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is working as a supervisor in the Government TASMAC Shop. On 17.09.2018, after closing the shop, while he along with one Muthukaruppan were proceeding to Kamuthi with the sales amount of Rs.2,05,500/-, an unknown person sprayed the chilli powder on the defacto complainant and his companion. At that time, another person came there and attacked the defacto complainant and looted the said sum of Rs.2,05,500/-. Hence, the complaint.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case and they have nothing to do with the alleged offence and they are innocent. He would further submit that the co-accused was already enlarged on anticipatory bail before this Court and hence, he would pray for the same for the present petitioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent police would submit that the co-accused had already enlarged on anticipatory bail before this Court. He would further submit the stolen amount was not recovered and hence, he objected for grant of anticipatory bail.

5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that till dated the stolen amount was not recovered, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. Hence the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. sd/- 02/04/2019 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO

1. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE THIRUCHULI POLICE STATION, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT.

2. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.4938 of 2019 Date :02/04/2019 MS/JC/SAR-2/22.04.2019/2P.3C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/