A.Radhakrishnan v. State Rep By

T.V.THAMILSELVI,J.

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 294(b), and 506(1) of IPC in Crime No.265 of 2022, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is a priest in the temple and it is alleged that the petitioner had caused disturbance and threatened the defacto complainant while performing pooja at the temple. Hence, a case.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and a false case has been foisted against him. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) for the respondent police submitted that there was a wordy quarrel between the petitioner and the defacto complainant due to which, the petitioner had

threatened the defacto complainant. He would further submit that there is one previous case as against the petitioner on the same set of allegation. Hence, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact there is one previous case on the same set of allegation as against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 05.12.2022 nr

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

nr 05.12.2022