James Pandi v. The State Rep By

T.V.THAMIILSELVI, J., The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 307, 109 and 120(b) of IPC in Crime No.367 of 2024, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 10.05.2022, at about 10.00 p.m., the petitioner along with other accused came to the house of the defacto complainant and attacked the defacto complainant's son with sickle and thereby caused injury to him and also attacked the defacto complainant and her relatives and flew away from the scene of occurrence. Hence the complaint.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any such offence as alleged by the prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioner's father having affair with the

defacto complainant due to which, there was dispute arose between the parties and prior to the occurrence, the petitioner's grandfather died and that the petitioner's father along with the defacto complainant and her son came to attend the funerals and the same was questioned by the petitioner's family and due to which, a false case has been foisted against the petitioner. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent raised objection stating that due to family dispute, the petitioner along with other accused came to the house of the defacto complainant and brutally attacked the son of the defacto complainant with sickle and the defacto complainant's son was attempted to stop the petitioner with his left hand, his left hand was cut of and also the petitioner attacked the defacto complainant and his relatives. Hence, he raised strong objection.

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

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the both counsels and also considering the fact that due to the assault of the petitioner, the son of the defacto complainant's hand was cut of and on considering the gravity of offence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 29.07.2024 ssi

T.V.THAMIILSELVI, J., ssi 29.07.2024