Mari v. The Inspector Of Police

RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J.

The Petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the Respondent police for the offence punishable under Sections 294(b), 447, 384 & 406(ii) of IPC in Crime No.108 of 2023 on the file of the Respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that during the year 1995, the Defacto Complainant purchased the subject land, thereafter entered into a sale agreement with one Uthayakumar and received advance for the same. On 20.02.2023, when the said Uthayakumar went to the land for cleaning the bushes, the Petitioner and co-accused came and quarrel and threatened him dire consequences. Hence the complaint.

3.The learned Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner is an innocent person and he was falsely implicated in this case. Hence, the learned counsel for the Petitioner prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the Petitioner.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the Respondent would submit that pursuant to the agreement of sale between Uthayakumar and the Defacto Complainant, on payment of Rs.5,00,000/- as advance, Uthayakumar entered into a subject property, at that the time the Petitioner 1/ 3

along with other accused threatened him with dire consequences. He vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioner. 5.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 6.Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and also the submissions made by the learned counsel on either sides and the fact that the enquiry is at the preliminary stage and the alleged overtact attributed to the Petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioner.

7.Accordingly, this Petition is dismissed.

15.09.2023 sai 2/ 3

RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J.

sai 15.09.2023 3/ 3