Rajendra Sampatrao Pawar v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Dated: 03/01/2022 PRESENT The Hon'ble Mr.Justice G.ILANGOVAN Crl.OP(MD)Nos.19307 to 19309 of 2021 Rajendra Sampatrao Pawar : Petitioner/Rank not known in All Crl.O.P's Vs.
State rep. By The Inspector of Police, Thanjavur Medical College Hospital Police Station, Thanjavur District.
(Crime No.1083, 1104, 1127 of 2021) : Respondent/Complainant in All Crl.O.P's IN ALL CRL.O.P'S For Petitioner : Mr.V.Illanchezian, Advocate For Respondent : Mr.S.Manikandan Government Advocate (Crl.side) PETITIONS FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime Nos.1083, 1104 and 1127 of 2021 on the file of the Respondent Police.
COMMON ORDER : The Court made the following order:- The petitioner, who has been arrayed as an accused, in these cases, apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under sections 457 and 380 IPC, in respect of Crime Nos.1083, 1104 and 1127 of 2021 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2.The petitioner is facing the charges in all the cases, for the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC. 3.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the State.
4.The ground, which was urged by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner during the course of argument is that the CCTV footage available in the shop would show that even on 20/11/2021, the police officials visited the shop, made enquiry and took the photographs also. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, when such being the position, arraying this petitioner as an accused is clearly an after thought. The petitioner also 1/3
relies upon the steps that have been taken by the wives of the above said A2/Senthil and A3/Sivanatham in the connected criminal original petitions, who have filed petitions for bail. But those steps that have been taken by the wives of the co-accused, cannot be taken advantage by this petitioner.4.Even though the bail applications filed by the co-accused persons namely A2 and A3, have been ordered today, considering the role that has been played by this petitioner, this court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to this petitioner, since the stolen articles have not been recovered so far and the petitioner is the habitual offender, who received the stolen articles from the accused persons.
5.Since the allegation of stolen articles placed upon the confession of the co-accused persons, granting of anticipatory bail to this petitioner, will cause hindrance to the investigation process. The offence of such nature requires proper investigation that too by taking custodial interrogation.
6.Since serious allegations have been made against this petitioner, the discretionary relief of granting anticipatory bail cannot be exercised in favour of the petitioner and this is not a fittest case to exercise the discretionary relief also. 7.Considering the nature of the offence and the alleged role played by this petitioner, this court is not inclined to grant anticipatory to the petitioner. Accordingly, these petitions are dismissed.
sd/- 03/01/2022 / TRUE COPY / / /2022 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE THANJAVUR MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL POLICE STATION, THANJAVUR DISTRICT.
2/3
2 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.19307 to 19309 of 2021 Date :03/01/2022 RS/VR/SAR.4(19.01.2022) 3P-3C 3/3