Vignesh v. The Sub Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Second day of December Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice V.M.VELUMANI CRL OP(MD) No.22412 of 2015 VIGNESH ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED(RANK NOT KNOWN) Vs THE STATE REP BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE BATLAGUNDU POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL DISTRICT (CRIME NO.375/2015) ... RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.D.VENKATESH Advocate For Respondent : M/S.K.ANBARASAN,Govt. 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 an accused, in Crime No.375 of 2015 on the file of the respondent police, was arrested on 10.10.2015 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 395 and 397 of I.P.C., @ 392, 397, 406 and 120-B of I.P.C., and hence, seeks bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 24.09.2015 at 8.45 a.m., on Sangili Pandi, Branch Manager of the Manappuram Finance Ltd., lodged a complaint stating that some unknown persons conspired together and committed the offence of robbery by taking the collection amount of Rs.16,54,461/- and gold ornaments weighing 8,250 gms kept in 11 compartments and the gold jewels were pledged by the customers of the finance company, by entering into the finance company after plucking the locker key from Security by putting a knife on his neck. Therefore, the case has been registered for the above said offences.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated, based on the confession of other accused persons and some of the property were recovered from the other accused. He further submitted that the petitioner is no way connected with the case and the petitioner has no previous case.
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) submitted that A1 and A6 are employees of Manapuram Finance and they have committed fraud by replacing the 18 carrot gold instead of 22 carrot gold. When the fraud was found in the Audit, the petitioner conspired with the other accused and committed robbery and some of the property has to be recovered and the investigation is pending. 5.Considering the gravity and seriousness of the offence and the investigation is pending, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Hence, this petition is dismissed. sd/- 02/12/2015 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
TO 1.THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE BATLAGUNDU POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL DISTRICT 2.THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI 3.THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE BORSTAL SCHOOL, PUDUKOTTAI RL/4C/SKS/RR/SARI/7/12/2015
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.22412 of 2015 Date :02/12/2015 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/