Prabakaran v. The State Rep.By, The Sub Inspector Of Police,

CRL OP NO. 82 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 24-01-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA CRL OP NO. 82 of 2025 1.Prabakaran 2.Santhi 3.Dinesh Kumar Petitioner(s) Vs The State Rep.By, The Sub Inspector Of Police, Karuppur, Salem.

Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s):

Soundararajan K C.Deepak Kumar R. Pandi Meena For Respondent(s):

S.Santhosh Government Advocate (criminal Side) Madras High Court.

ORDER

Apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No.891 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 351(3) of BNS, the present petition has been filed seeking anticipatory bail.

2. Pleading innocence on the part of the petitioners, false implication in the case, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks indulgence of this Court. He would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and have had nothing to do with the allegations made in the complaint. He would submit that the petitioners are ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court.

3. The case of the prosecution as putforth by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent Police, opposing for grant of anticipatory bail, is that though the matter appears to be a civil dispute, the petitioners have habitually attacked the defacto complainant. He would submit that, as far as the first petitioner is concerned, he assaulted the defacto complainant with a knife, while the second and third petitioners assaulted him with their hands. He would also submit that there is a case in counter case filed against the defacto complainant.

4. The learned counsel for the intervenor/defacto complainant would vehemently opposed the petitioner's claim that this is a civil dispute. The fact remains that the petitioners unlawfully blocked the public path and have been repeatedly harassing and assaulting the public. He would submit that the first petitioner used a knife and caused grievous injuries to the defacto complainant. Therefore, he objected for grant of bail to the petitioners.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court is of the view that the first petitioner attacked the defacto complainant with a knife. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the first petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed as against the first petitioner. As far as the second and third petitioners are concerned, this Court is of the view that they may be granted bail. Accordingly, the second and third petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.

II, Salem, on condition that the second and third petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.

[a] if the second and third petitioners fail to surrender before the said Magistrate within a period of fifteen days, this Order shall stand automatically cancelled;

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.

[b] the second and third petitioners shall report before the respondent Police everyday at 10.30 a.m., until further orders. [c] the second and third petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

[d] the second and third petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

[e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the second and third petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the second and third petitioners released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560];

[f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS.

24-01-2025 Lpp To

1. The State Rep.By, The Sub Inspector Of Police, Karuppur, Salem.

CRL OP NO. 82 of 2025