BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Ninth day of November Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU CRL OP(MD) No.14237 of 2011 SELVAKUMAR ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED Vs STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE KARUNGAL POLICE STATION, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT. CRIME NO.439/2011 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT FOR PETITIONER : M/S.A.RAJKUMAR SEN ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT : MR.K.S.DURAIPANDIAN GOVT. ADVOCATE ( CRL. SIDE) PETITION FOR BAIL UNDER SEC.439 CR.P.C. ORDER : THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING ORDER :- The petitioner in one of the accused in Crime No.439 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police, for offences under Sections 392, 365, 395 I.P.C. He has been in judicial custody from 31.08.2011 onwards. He seeks bail. 2.According to the case of prosecution, the de-facto complainant was waylaided by four persons, who came in a car when the de-facto complainant was proceeding in a motor-cycle carrying a bag containing a sum of Rs.3,25,000/-. On waylaiding, it is stated that these accused snatched away the bag containing money and fled away from the scene of occurrence. With great difficulty, the accused have been taken into custody. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would deny the above allegation. According to him, petitioner is the owner of the car bearing Registration No.TN74C2944. He would further submit that the car was hired by somebody and the petitioner has got no connection with the alleged crime. 4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioner was one of the inmates of the car at the time of committing crime. Therefore, the petitioner's plea that he has got no connection with the crime, cannot be countenanced. 5.I have considered the above submissions. 6.In my considered opinion, the allegation made against the petitioner is so serious. A sum of Rs.3,25,000/- was snatched away from the de-facto complainant. Apart from that, the petitioner was also present in the car at the time of commition of crime. It is not the case of the prosecution as though the petitioner has got no knowledge about the crime. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7.In such view of the matter, it is not a fit case for granting bail to the petitioner at this stage. Hence, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. sd/- 09/11/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KARUNGAL POLICE STATION, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT. 2 THE OFFICER INCHARGE, SUB JAIL, NAGERCOIL. 3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.14237 of 2011 Date :09/11/2011 2P/4C RPB : 15.11.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/