Meenkara Mariyappan @ Mariyappan v. State Rep By

Crl.OP.No.18035 of 2022 Crl.O.P.No.18035 of 2022 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

The petitioners who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 324 and 506(2) of IPC, in Crime No.576 of 2022, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners went to a hotel and given order for food by sitting in car. When the defacto complainant told them to come inside the hotel, the petitioners abused the defacto complainant and also attacked him with stones. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and no way connected with the alleged offence. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioners attacked the defacto complainant with stones and caused injuries. He also submitted that the first petitioner has 16 previous cases and the second petitioner has 10 previous cases. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP.No.18035 of 2022 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

mn

5. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the bad antecedents of the petitioners, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is very much required in this case. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 02.08.2022 mn Crl.O.P.No.18035 of 2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis