Vinoth v. The State Represented By

Crl.O.P.No.20578 of 2022 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

The petitioner, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 506(ii) IPC and later altered into Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 307, 506(ii) IPC in Crime No. 190 of 2022, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that, due to previous enmity, the petitioner along with other accused had attacked the defacto complainant and also threatened with dire consequences, due to which, the defacto complainant sustained grievous injuries. Hence, the case.

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.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that this is the second anticipatory bail petition filed by the petition and the earlier petition was dismissed by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.17800 of 2022. He would further submit that the petitioner is an History Sheeter in H.S.No.01 of 2020 and there are nine previous cases pending as against https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

Anu him. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Considering the fact the petitioner is an History Sheeter having nine previous cases, there is no change of circumstances to consider the second anticipatory bail petition. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

6. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 29.08.2022 Anu Crl.O.P.No.20578 of 2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis