No relief to ATM-heist accused as plea against detention dismissed by Madras High Court

The bench of Justices S M Subramaniam and T Ramathiligam refused any relief while dismissing a habeas corpus writ petition from the brother of the accused challenging the detention.
Madras High Court (File Photo | Express Photo Service)
Madras High Court (File Photo | Express Photo Service)

CHENNAI:A vacation bench of the Madras High Court has refused to quash an order, dated January 11 last, of the Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore, detaining one A Julfigur (25), who had broken open an ATM of the Axis Bank in Peelamedu and stole Rs 26.70 lakh on December 11, 2017, under the Goondas Act.
The bench of Justices S M Subramaniam and T Ramathiligam refused any relief while dismissing a habeas corpus writ petition from the brother of the accused challenging the detention. Petitioner contended that there was inordinate delay in considering his representation. After going through records, the bench found that there was no delay on the part of the government authorities in considering the representation. There had been intervening holidays, the bench pointed out.

The bench also pointed out that the detainee had involvement in many such cases, which are all of very serious in nature, affecting the public peace and tranquility. “On a perusal of the list of cases, in which the detainee is wanted all over the country,  we are of the opinion that considering the case of the petitioner will certainly cause prejudice to the public order and a great concern for the State and also for the nation. After implementation of the demonetisation in our country, people are mostly using ATMs and cashless transactions are in improved stage.

This being the prevailing situation in the society, we are of the opinion that such crimes committed by breaking open the ATM in the presence of the public will certainly affect the public order and the state has to take stringent action against such offences. Periodical monitoring of these kinds of offences and protection to ATM are also certainly required. Police patrols should also be intensified in such offence-prone areas where the ATM machines are installed,” the bench observed and added apart from the ground of delay, the petitioner is unable to raise any other legally acceptable ground, so as  to consider his plea. .

Related Stories

No stories found.
The New Indian Express
www.newindianexpress.com