Munnir v. The State Rep By Its,

T.V.THAMILSELVI,J.

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent Police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 341, 294(b), 395, 397, 364, 384, 506(ii)of IPC, in Crime No.3 of 2023 on file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution as per the de-facto complainant is that the accused have waylaid the de-facto complainant, who was coming in Mahendra Max vehicle bearing registration No.TN-73-D-1859 and threatened him to give money, when the de-facto complainant refused to give money, they had abused him in a filthy language and forcibly taken a sum of Rs.20,000/- from his pocket at knife point. The further allegation is that the accused have kidnapped him to the nearby place, assaulted him and asked him to call his family and demanded Rs.2 lakhs as ransom. Later, when the relative of the defacto complainant one Murugan came there, the accused escaped from the scene of occurrence with de-facto complainant's vehicle. Hence the case.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners

are innocent persons and they have been falsely implicated in this case, since each of them have got several previous cases. He further submitted that the petitioners are no way connected with the alleged incident and also stated that they are ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that the petitioners along with the other accused have kidnapped the de-facto complainant for ransom and by abusing and assaulting him, had taken away a sum of Rs.20,000/- and the vehicle, which was driven by the de-facto complainant and escaped from the scene of occurrence. He also stated that the cellphones robbed by the accused were recovered from A2. He further submitted that the petitioners herein are arrayed as A5 and A6 in this case and each of them having nine and eight previous cases respectively. Therefore, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent and perused the entire materials available on record.

6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) and also considering the nature and gravity of the offence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 24.01.2023 ham

T.V.THAMILSELVI,J.

ham 24.01.2023