E.Ezhaiyammal v. State Of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By The Inspector Of Police,

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.

The petitioners who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 324, and 307 of IPC, in Crime No.101 of 2023, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution as per the defacto complainant Murugan is that due to previous enmity, on account of land dispute, the accused have assaulted him and his wife with knife, due to which, they sustained severe injuries on head. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He would also submit that the petitioners are none other than the sister and brother-in-law of the defacto complainant. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that due to property dispute, the accused had assaulted the defacto complainant and his wife indiscriminately with Aruval, due to which, they sustained injuries. He would also submit that the victims are still in the hospital and the investigation is in initial stage. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the victims are still in the hospital and the investigation is in initial stage, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners for the present.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed for the present.

07.03.2023 mn

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.

mn 07.03.2023