Senguttuvan v. The State Rep By Its,

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections Man Missing and subsequently altered into Sec.147, 148, 120(B), 450, 302, 201 of I.P.C. in Crime No.511 of 2022 on the file of respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 16.10.2022, the defacto complainant's son went outside and not returned to home and his mobile phone was also switched off, thereby, F.I.R. was registered under Section Man missing. Thereafter, after investigation, the respondent police reported that A1 is wife of deceased and she is having illegal contact with A2. A3 is son of A1. A1 along with A2 and A3 said to have planned to kill the deceased person with help of A4 and A5, and attacked him, due to which, he sustained injuries and died. Hence, the present complaint was registered. 1/4

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that this the third petition seeking for anticipatory bail and he is an innocent person. He would submit that he is no way connected with the offence as alleged in the complaint and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He would also submit that there is no specific overtact attributed against the petitioner and he is ready to comply with any condition imposed by this court. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for respondent would submit that A1 is wife of deceased and having affair with A2. He would submit that A1 along with A2 and A3 planned to kill the deceased person with the help of A4 and A5 and the petitioner is arrayed A5 in this case. He would submit that he is one of hooligan played a main role in the occurrence. He would further submit that if the anticipatory bail is granted, he may tamper the evidence and hamper the investigation. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Considering the above fact and circumstances of the case and the 2/4

submissions made by both the counsels and also on considering the gravity of offence committed by the petitioner and there is no change of circumstances and also the fact that he is one of hooligan made a main role in the occurrence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, and he is directed to surrender before the respondent police. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 30.06.2023 rpp T.V.THAMILSELVI,J.

3/4

rpp 30.06.2023 4/4