Back
MADRAS HIGH COURT
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J
January Two Thousand Twenty Two PRESENT The Hon`ble Mrs Justice T.V. THAMILSELVI CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.448
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Tenth day
ANTICIPATORY BAIL - WILDLIFE PROTECTION - [Section 49(B) of the Tamil Nadu Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972] - Petitioner apprehends arrest for alleged illegal attempt to shoplift elephant tusk - Bail denied considering gravity of offense and ongoing investigation.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, V. Anbu, sought anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 8 of 2021, registered under Section 49(B) of the Tamil Nadu Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972, for allegedly attempting to shoplift an elephant tusk.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the investigation was at an initial stage and some of the accused were absconding, and that the gravity of the offense committed by the petitioner warranted denial of anticipatory bail.
Issues: Whether the petitioner should be granted anticipatory bail in connection with the alleged illegal attempt to shoplift an elephant tusk.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the gravity of the offense and the ongoing investigation precluded the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition for anticipatory bail.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
( Criminal Jurisdiction )
Monday, the Tenth day of January Two Thousand Twenty Two
PRESENT
The Hon`ble Mrs Justice T.V. THAMILSELVI
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.448 of 2022
V.ANBU
[ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ]
Vs
THE STATE REP BY
[ RESPONDENT ]
THE RANGER OF FOREST,
THASILDAR OFFICE COMPLEX,
SV ROAD,
DHARMAPURI 636701.
(CRIME NO.8/2021)
For Petitioner : M/S D.JAGADEESAN Advocate
For Respondent : MR. A.GOKULAKRISHNAN, Additional Public Prosecutor
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 alleged offences under sections 49(B) of
the Tamil Nadu Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972, in Crime No.8 of 2021
seeks anticipatory bail.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along
with other accused illegally attempted to shoplift the elephant tusk.
Hence, the Law Enforcing Agency registered a case against the
petitioner.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner is no way connected with the occurrence as
alleged by the prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in this
case. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the
petitioner.
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that
investigation is at initial stage and further some of the accused are
absconding. Hence, he vehemently opposed grant of anticipatory bail
to the petitioner .
5.Considering the gravity of offence committed by the
petitioner and also considering that the investigation not yet
completed, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to
the petitioner.
6.Accordingly,
this Criminal Original Petition is
dismissed.
-sd/-
10/01/2022
This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried
into execution by all concerned
TRUE COPY
Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.)
High Court, Madras - 600 104.
TO
1 THE RANGER OF FOREST,
THASILDAR OFFICE COMPLEX,
SV ROAD, DHARMAPURI 636701.
2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT, MADRAS.
CC to M/S D.JAGADEESAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges
CRL OP.448/2022
Date :10/01/2022
RW 24/01/2022
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
