Udayakumar v. State By The Inspector Of Police

Crl.O.P.No.20642 of 2022 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323 & 506(ii) IPC in Crime No. 597 of 2022, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that there was a tenancy dispute between the petitioner and the defacto complainant. Due to which there arose a wordy quarrel between them. Hence, the complaint.

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 the petitioner is the tenant of the defacto complainant. It is alleged that the defacto complainant asked the petitioner to vacate the premises, however, the same was refused by the petitioner. Therefore, a wordy https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

Anu quarrel arose between them. He would further submit that there are ten previous cases pending against the petitioner and he is a history sheeter. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Taking into consideration of the bad antecedents on the petitioner and the previous cases pending against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 30.08.2022 Anu Crl.O.P.No.20642 of 2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis