Madhan @ Murugan v. State Rep By The Inspector Of Police

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 395 and 397 of IPC in Crime No.785 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners waylaid the defacto complainant with knife point and snatched his mobile phone worth about Rs,10,000/- and cash of Rs.500/- . Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any such offence as alleged by the prosecution and they have been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

1/3

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent submits that the petitioners waylaid the defacto complainant with knife point and snatched his mobile phone worth about Rs,10,000/- and cash of Rs.500/-. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. Taking into consideration the facts and submissions of the learned Counsel and also the serious offence committed by the petitioner this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 29.08.2022 vv 2/3

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

Vv 29.08.2022 3/3