Madhan @ Murugan v. State Rep By

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 395 and 397 of IPC in Crime No.786 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners waylaid the defacto complainant and snatched his mobile phone worth about Rs.10,000/- and cash of Rs.6,500/- . Hence, the complaint.

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

1/4

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent submits that the petitioners waylaid the defacto complainant and snatched his mobile phone worth about Rs.10,000/- and cash of Rs.6,500/-. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. It is seen that this court already dismissed the anticipatory bail petition filed by the petitioners in Crl.OP.No.20317 of 2022 on 26.08.2022 and this is the second petition. However, there is no change of circumstances in the case. Further, apart from this case, other five cases are pending against the petitioners. As such, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 16.11.2022 lok 2/4

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

lok 3/4

16.11.2022 4/4