K.Madhan @ Madhan Kumar 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 Section 341, 294(b), 506(ii) & 307 of IPC in Crime No.287 of 2023, registered on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that due to previous enmity, the petitioner, along with other accused, waylaid the defacto complainant and attacked him with knife and thereby, caused injuries to him. Hence, the complaint.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case on account of previous enmity. He further submitted that this is the second application for anticipatory bail and the earlier application for anticipatory bail was dismissed stating that there are two previous cases pending against him. He further submitted that the injured has been discharged from the hospital and thereby, he seeks for anticipatory bail.

1/4

4. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that there are two previous cases pending against the petitioner and this Court had dismissed the earlier anticipatory bail application. He further submitted that even on the earlier occasion, it was submitted that the injured was discharged from the hospital. However, this Court had taken into consideration the antecedents of the petitioner while dismissing the case. He further submitted that as per the defacto complainant, the petitioner is the person who has inflicted the grievous cut injuries on him, by using a knife and therefore, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent and also perused the materials available on record.

6. Though it was submitted on the earlier occasion that the injured has been discharged from the hospital, this Court taking into consideration the antecedents of the petitioner had dismissed the anticipatory bail 2/4

application. Further, it is also stated that the petitioner is the person who has inflicted the grievous injuries on the victim.

7. Taking into consideration the facts that there is no change of circumstances and that the main overt act is attributed against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

8. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 19.07.2023 AT 3/4

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA.,J.

AT 19.07.2023 4/4