P.Surenthiran v. The State Rep.By

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN , J.

The petitioners herein seek anticipatory bail in Crime No.1008 of 2023 registered by the respondent Police for the offences under Sections 341, 353, 225 IPC. 2.The learned counsel for the petitioners stated that they have been falsely implicated as accused in this case. Apprehending arrest from the respondent police, he seeks bail to the petitioners.

3.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) stated that when the police had taken into custody the accused Senthilkumar in Crime No.317 of 2023 registered for the offences under Sections 294(b), 153(A), 504, 509 IPC and 40F TNPHW Act 506(ii) IPC, it had been alleged that the petitioners and other accused intercepted the police jeep and had threatened the police officials and asked them to leave out the accused. Thereafter, this complaint had been lodged and First Information Report in Crime No.1008 of 2023 had been registered.

1/3

4.In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioners states that the said Senthilkumar who had been taken into custody had been granted bail in Crime No.317 of 2023 on the very same day.

5.This very fact shows that the fact stated by the defacto complainant that he had secured Senthilkumar stands established. The petitioners had obstructed the police vehicle and threatened them. Therefore, taking all the facts into consideration, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

06.11.2023 gd 2/3

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN , J.

gd 06.11.2023 3/3