A. Mohamed Irfan, v. The Sub Inspector Of Police,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Ninth day of July Two Thousand Nineteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice P.RAJAMANICKAM CRL OP(MD) No.9250 of 2019 A.MOHAMED IRFAN ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED (NOT FOUND IN FIR) Vs THE STATE REP BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CUMBUM NORTH POLICE STATION, THENI DISTRICT.

(CRIME NO.179 OF 2019) ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.G.RAJAN Advocate For Respondent : M/S.M.ANANTHA DEVI, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offence punishable under Section 394 of IPC, in crime No.179 of 2019, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.Heard both sides.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the name of the petitioner has not been mentioned in the F.I.R. He further submitted that the petitioner is MBA student. He further submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and police is purposely searching the petitioner to implicate in the above case and hence, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the State has submitted that totally four persons including this petitioner way laid the defacto complainant and robbed a sum of Rs.8,000/- and a Mobile Phone. He further submitted that since the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

petitioner is having more than 10 cases out of which in one case he was convicted and hence, the respondent suspected the involvement of the petitioner in the above case and also a photo has been shown to the defacto complainant and the defacto complainant on seeing the photo confirmed that the petitioner also involved in the above case. She further submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is absolutely necessary and hence, he strongly opposed this petition.

5.Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and also submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is absolutely necessary, this Court is not inclined grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6.Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed. sd/- 09/07/2019 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1.THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CUMBUM NORTH POLICE STATION, THENI DISTRICT.

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

ORDER

IN CRL.OP(MD) No.9250 of 2019 Date : 09/07/2019 JM/JC/SAR 1/18.7.2019/2P/3C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/