A.Saravanan v. Inspector Of Police

Crl.O.P.No.27410 of 2022 A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J., The petitioners, who apprehends arrest for the alleged offences under Sections 397 of IPC in Crime No.492 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant and robbed 2gms of gold stud and mobile phone. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case. Therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (crl.side) would submit that the petitioners have trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant by brandishing the knife had stolen 2gms of gold stud and mobile phone. When the defacto complainant had raised alarm, the petitioners have run away leaving the two wheeler at the spot. He would submit that as far as the first petitioner is concerned he is having one previous case under Prohibition Act and as far as the second petitioner is concerned he is having five previous cases. He would submit that the case is under investigation. Hence, he vehemently oppose to 1/3

grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

A.D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA. J, tsh

5. Taking into consideration the fact that the first petitioner is having one previous case under Prohibition Act and the second petitioner is having five previous cases, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Hence, the criminal original petition stands dismissed. 10.11.2022 tsh Crl.O.P.No.27410 of 2022 2/3

3/3