Manikandan @ Pokkiri Manikandan v. State Rep By

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 392, 506(2) of IPC read with Section 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 in Crime No. 230 of 2022, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is a lorry driver and on 10.08.2022 at about 1.00 a.m. while the defacto complainant and one Mr.Sudharakaran travelling from Krishnapuram to Koolamedu, at that time, the petitioners and two other persons stopped them and snatched Rs.5,000/- from the pocket of the defacto complainant and scolded in a filthy language and also demanded Rs.50,000/- as mamool. When the defacto complainant refused to give money, all the accused persons threatened to kill them and also damaged the front side glass of the tipper lorry. When the defacto complainant raised alarm, all the accused ran away from the occurrence place. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, he prays for grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that A2 has already been arrested and remanded to judicial custody.

5. Taking note of the fact and the submission made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, this petition is dismissed as infructuous as against the 1st petitioner/A2.

6. Considering the above fact and circumstances of the case and custodial interrogation of the 2nd petitioner is very much required and therefore this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the 2nd petitioner. Accordingly this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed as against the 2nd petitioner.

01.09.2022 Lpp

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

Lpp 01.09.2022