Pandiyan @ Rajeev Gandhi v. State Rep By

Crl.O.P.No.18044 of 2022 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

The petitioner, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Section 147, 148, 294(b), 448, 324, 307 IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act in Crime No. 341 of 2022, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that due to previous enmity, A1 along with A2 abused the defacto complainant's daughter and his family members in filthy language. When the same was questioned by the defacto complainant, there arose quarrel between them, in which the petitioner along with other accused persons assaulted the defacto complainant, due to which, the defacto complainant sustained injuries. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he prays to anticipatory bail to the petitioner. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

Anu

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioner along with other accused persons is alleged to have assaulted the defacto complainant with iron road and caused injuries. He would further submit that the injured person is still in the hospital. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Considering that the injured is still taking treatment in the hospital, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

6. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 04.08.2022 Anu Crl.O.P.No.18044 of 2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis