AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offences under Sections 138 and 140(2) of BNS, in Crime No.393 of 2026, and seeks anticipatory bail.
The case of the prosecution is that the de-facto complainant’s son, Ganesh, and Vignesh were abducted and assaulted by unknown persons on 21.09.2026. Vignesh was released after his father paid Rs.1,60,000/-. The accused allegedly demanded Rs.2,00,000/- as ransom for Ganesh’s release and threatened to kill him if the police were informed. It is further alleged that Ganesh was carryig a four-sovereign gold ring and Rs.2,000/- in cash. Hence, the case.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence as alleged by the defacto complainant and that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court and is also ready to cooperate with the investigation. Hence, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) opposed the grant of anticipatory bail and submitted that the accused abducted and assaulted the victims, demanded Rs.2,00,000/- as ransom, and threatened to kill the de-facto complainant’s son. Therefore, he contended that the petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. .
I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and have also perused the records available on record.
Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, the abduction of the de-facto complainant’s son, the demand for ransom, and the threat to his life, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.