K.Venkatesan v. State Rep By The Inspector Of Police

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.

The petitioner who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 506(2) IPC in Crime No.88 of 2023 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is running a Hardware Shop and the petitioner is alleged to have been maintaining a Perumal Temple against law. While so, the petitioner along with others tried to put up a gate and when the defacto complainant questioned the same, there was some man handling during which, the petitioner has used abusive and unparliamentary languages against the defacto complainant and also assaulted him. Hence the case.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent and a false case has been foisted against him. He would further submit that the petitioner has been maintaining the said Perumal Temple for a long time and for safety reasons, he erected

gate which was objected by the defacto complainant for the reasons best known to him and in order to prevent the petitioner from proceeding further in erecting the gate, the defacto complainant has given a false complaint against the petitioner. Hence, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent vehemently opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner stating that the petitioner is a History Sheeter against whom there are 8 previous cases.

5. Taking into account the nature of offence and the previous antecedents of the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.

07.06.2023 ksa-2

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J., ksa-2 07.06.2023