A.Jayaprakash v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Fifth day of January Two Thousand Seventeen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice A.M.BASHEER AHAMED CRL OP(MD) No.136 of 2017 1 A.JAYAPRAKASH 2 S.ANAND ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED NO.2 & 4 Vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE RAMJEE NAGAR POLICE STATION, TRICHY DISTRICT, CR NO. 251/2016.

... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.B.JANATH AHMED Advocate For Respondent : M/S.P.KANDASAMY, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C.

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners are arrayed as A2 & A4, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 21.12.2016 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 392 and 397 IPC, in Crime No.251 of 2016, on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek bail.

2.The learned counsel for the petitioners states the first petitioner herein is a police driver and the second petitioner is working under him as Home Guard and they were arrested on 21.12.2016 and they are in custody for offences under Sections 392 and 397 IPC. It is further stated that the date of occurrence is 18.12.2016 and FIR was registered on 21.12.2016. 3.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent states that the defacto complainant went to Manapparai in his Indica Car from on 18.12.2016 to meet his friends and returned from Manappara and stopped the car near Priest University, Chatirapatti for attending natural call and at that time four persons in their motorcycle came to the spot and showed knife and threatened him with dire consequences and searched the car and took away a bag contains Rs.3 lakhs.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) would further submit that totally there are four accused in this case and the four accused were arrested and they are in custody. The learned Government Advocate further submits that a sum of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Rs.75,000/- was recovered from each of the accused. He would further submitted that the accused are said to have searched the vehicle as Police Officers and they have taken away the amount illegally from the defacto complainant and investigation is still pending.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners at this stage. Hence, this petition is dismissed.

sd/- 05/01/2017 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.3) TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE RAMJEE NAGAR POLICE STATION, TRICHY DISTRICT, 2 THE SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL PRISON, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI.

3 THE ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

+1. CC to M/S.B.JANATH AHMED Advocate SR.No.1166

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.136 of 2017 Date :05/01/2017 anr/ss2/sar3/10.01.2017/2p/5c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/