Balamurugan, v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Eleventh day of February Two Thousand Nineteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.DHANDAPANI CRL OP(MD) Nos.913 AND 937 of 2019 BALAMURUGAN ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED No. 3 IN CRL OP(MD) No. 913 of 2019 MANIKANDAN ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED No. 4 IN CRL OP(MD) No. 937 of 2019 Vs THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU, REP. BY ITS INSPECTOR OF POLICE SAYALKUDI POLICE STATION, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT.

(CRIME NO.231/2018) ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT IN BOTH THE PETITIONS For Petitioner : MR.R.BABU JAGANATH Advocate IN BOTH THE PETITIONS For Respondent : MR.K.SUYAMBULINGA BHARATHI Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) IN BOTH THE PETITIONS PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners in both petitions, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences under Sections 392 of IPC, in Cr.No.231 of 2018 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is working as a collection agent of Connect Business Solution Limited of HDFC Bank. On 27.12.2018, after collecting the money to the tune of Rs.1,94,800/- from the customers, he started from Paramakudi in his Two-wheeler bearing No.TN 63 BB 8327 along with one Rajesh Kannan. When they reached near Koorankottai Vilakku, three persons way laid the bike and by threatening the defacto complainant robbed the above said money and receipt printing machine and escaped from the scene of occurrence. Hence, the complaint. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons. A1 and A2 were enlarged on bail by the Court below. The petitioners are A3 and A4. 4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State would submit that investigation is still pending and though the A1 and A2 were enlarged on bail by the Court below, the stolen money and the billing machine are yet to be recovered from the accused persons and vehemently opposed to entertain this petition. Moreover, the petitioners have seven previous cases pending against them.

5.Considering the facts and circumstances of this case since the petitioners have 7 previous cases including offences under section 302 IPC and though the A1 and A2 were enlarged on bail, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 6.Accordingly, these criminal original petitions are dismissed.

sd/- 11/02/2019 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE SAYALKUDI POLICE STATION, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT.

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

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) Nos.913 AND Date :11/02/2019 MSI/VR/SAR-III/15.02.2019-2P/3C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/