Ragu @ Ragupathi v. The State Rep.By

Crl.O.P.No.18464 of 2023 Crl.O.P.No.18464 of 2023 RMT. TEEKAA RAMAN.,J.

The petitioner/A2, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offence punishable under Sections 387 and 506(ii) of I.P.C in Crime No.582 of 2023 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 14.07.2023, the petitioner along with another accused waylaid the de-facto complainant at knife point and forced and obtained Rs.940/- from him. Hence the case. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the property involved in the above case was recovered by the respondent-police from him. Hence, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4.Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police would submit that based upon his confession statement of the first accused, the petitioner is added as an accused. Hence, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/2

Crl.O.P.No.18464 of 2023 RMT. TEEKAA RAMAN.,J.

nvi 5.Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (crl.side) and perused the materials available on record.

6.Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and considering the nature and gravity of the offence committed by the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 7.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 22.08.2023 nvi Crl.O.P.No.18464 of 2023 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/2