Hari @ Haridoss v. State By

Crl.O.P.No.13293 of 2016 S.VAIDYANATHAN,J.

The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 17.05.2016 by the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 147, 148,448,294(b),324,307 IPC in Crime No.430 of 2016 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that there a temple dispute between the petitioner and the defacto complainant in which, the petitioner attacked the defacto complainant and damaged his house. Hence, the present complaint has been filed against the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that the petitioner had been implicated in other cases. Even as per the version of the defacto complainant, no injuries to him. The respondent police had referred the petitioner's case before the RDO u/s.110 of Cr.P.C., which is pending. In order to prevent the petitioner from getting released, the present case had been filed at the instigation of the defacto complainant. He further submitted that the petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.1387/2016 which was dismissed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chenglepet on

S.VAIDYANATHAN,J.

Gv 17.06.2016 and the petitioner has been suffering incarceration from 17.05.2016. The petitioner was acquitted in the previous cases. Thus he prayed for granting bail.

4.Learned Government Advocate (crl.side) submitted that there were two caveats filed in respect of schedule of property. There are 8 previous cases as against the petitioner, out of which two cases were registered under Sections 365, 307 of IPC for major offences.

5. Taking note of the fact that the petitioner herein is having eight previous cases, out of which, one was registered as major offence under Sections 307 IPC, and merely because he was acquitted in six other cases, maynot be a ground to grant the relief sought for by the petitioner. The petitioner is alleged to have two previous cases. Hence, this court is not inclined to grant bail. Therefore, this petition is dismissed. 29.06.2016 gv Crl.O.P.No.13293 of 2016