BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Thirteenth day of December Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr. Justice V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH CRL OP(MD) No.16253 of 2011 B.SATHIK BATCHA ... PETITIONER / SOLE ACCUSED Vs STATE, REP. THROUGH ITS THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, B-4, KEERAIDURAI POLICE STATION, MADURAI CR. NO.1005/2011 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. B.N.RAJA MOHAMED Advocate For Respondent : MR.K.S.DURAIPANDIAN, Addl. Public Prosecutor (Crl. Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner is the sole accused and he was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 01.12.2011 for the alleged commission of offences under Sections 397 and 506(ii) I.P.C in Crime No.1005 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seeks bail. 2.Heard Mr.B.N.Raja Mohamed, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.K.S.Durai Pandian, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit in his argument that the petitioner has not involved in the offence said to have been committed by him. He would further submit that the petitioner himself stated that he has no interest to snatch the chain that too a gold covering chain from the de-facto complainant. He would further submit that the alleged recovery of chain from him is also not true and he is in judicial custody from 01.12.2011 and hence, he prays for bail. 4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit in his argument that the chain has been recovered from the petitioner and the investigation is offing and the de-facto complainant has no motive to lodge a complaint against the petitioner and therefore, it is not a fit case for grant of regular bail. 5.Considering the submission made on both sides, I could see that the chain even though it is a gold covering chain has been recovered from the custody of the petitioner and the investigation is offing and if the petitioner is enlarged on bail there is a chance of absconding and tampering of witnesses. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. sd/- 13/12/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ TO 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, MADURAI. 2. THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. 3. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, B-4, KEERAIDURAI POLICE STATION, MADURAI. ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.16253 of 2011 Date :13/12/2011 RJ/16.12.11 2p/4c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/