Justin Paulraj v. The State Rep.By

T.V.THAMILSELVI,J.

The petitioners, who apprehends arrest for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 147,148,341,294(b),323,324,307 of I.P.C in Crime No.313 of 2022, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that there was some money dispute between the petitioners and the defacto complainant, due to which the petitioners brutally attacked the defacto complainant and caused head injuries and grievous injuries all over the body. Hence the complaint. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Hence prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit

that there was a money dispute between the petitioners and the defacto complainant, due to which the petitioners brutally attacked the defacto complainant and caused head injuries and grievous injuries all over the body. Hence he vehemently opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of offence committed by the petitioners, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

6. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 06.02.2023 smn T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

smn 06.02.2023