Gowtham v. The State Rep By Its,

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA , J.

The petitioner who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 336, 392, 397, 427 and 506(ii) of IPC in Crime No.62 of 2023, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution as per the defacto complainant Nagappan is that the accused person have gone to the shop of the defacto complainant and consumed cool drinks and they refused to pay the amount. When the defacto complainant had questioned the same, the accused have abused him with filthy language, assaulted him and robbed sum of Rs.1,500/-. Hence, the complaint.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that the petitioner is no way connected with the alleged offence and this is the second anticipatory bail application after the dismissal of the earlier application. Hence, he prays

for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 4.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that accused persons have consumed cool drinks and they refused to pay the amount and when the same was questioned, they have abused the defacto complainant and also assaulted him. He would further submit that this is second application for anticipatory bail and the earlier application was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner was having three previous cases. Hence, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5.Taking into account the nature of offence and the previous antecedents of the petitioner and also of the fact that the earlier applications for anticipatory bail were dismissed and there is no change of circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 12.06.2023 drl A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA , J.

drl 12.06.2023