Murugesan v. The State Rep By Its,

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 448, 353 and 506(i) of IPC in Crime No.138 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was alleged to have black marketing the TASMAC Items in local area. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any such offence as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

1/4

4. The learned Government Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioner was alleged to have black marketing the TASMAC Items in local area. He would further submit that there are six previous cases pending as against the petitioner. He would further submit that this Court dismissed the petitioner's earlier anticipatory bail petition vide order dated 03.08.2022 in Crl.OP.No.18208 of 2022. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Taking into consideration the facts and submissions of the learned Counsel and also the considering that there is no change of circumstances after the dismissal of the petitioner's earlier anticipatory bail application, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 02.09.2022 vv 2/4

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

Vv 02.09.2022 3/4

4/4