Aravindan v. The State Rep. By

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), 397 and 506(ii) of IPC in Crime No.258 of 2023 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner, along with other accused, waylaid the defacto complainant and robbed a sum of Rs.550 from him at knife point and ran away from the place of occurrence. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submit that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that the petitioner, along with other accused, waylaid the defacto complainant

and robbed a sum of Rs.550 from him at knife point and ran away from the place of occurrence. He further submitted that the petitioner has got eight previous cases, out of which, one case is for the offence under Section 302 of IPC, two cases for the offence under Section 307 of IPC and three cases for the offence under Section 324 of IPC pending as against him. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 5.Heard the learned counsel on either sides and perused the entire materials available on record including the First Information Report. 6.Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the petitioner has got eight previous cases pending as against him, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 21.06.2023 Lpp

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA. J.

Lpp 21.06.2023