S.Geetha v. State Rep By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 10.01.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI CRL.O.P.No.353 of 2022 1.S.Geetha 2.L.Varatharaj @ Badaai 3.M.Vasu ... Petitioners / A1 to A3

Versus

The State Rep by The Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri Taluk Police Station, Krishnagiri District.

(Crime No.598 of 2021) ... Respondent Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in the Crime No.598 of 2021 pending on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioners : Mr.N.Sureka For Respondent : Mr.N.S.Suganthan Government Advocate (Crl. Side) *****

ORDER

(The case has been heard through video conference) The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences under Sections 294(b), 323 and 506(ii) of I.P.C. in Crime No.598 of 2021, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that due to land dispute there was wordy quarrel between the parties and that on 24.12.2021, at about 12.30 p.m., the 1st petitioner was tried to dig the pipeline in the common pathway at that time the defacto complainant was obstructed that not to dig the pipeline in the common pathway and in the meanwhile the 2nd and 3rd petitioners were also joined together along with 1st petitioner and tried to attack the defacto complainant

with deadly weapons and also threatened her with dire consequences. As a result of which, the defacto complainant sustained severe injuries all over her body. Hence this case.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that there was a civil dispute due to previous enmity a false case has been foisted against the petitioners. Hence, the learned counsel prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that the petitioners were tried to attack the defacto complainant with deadly weapons and also threatened her with dire consequences due to which, the defacto complainant sustained severe injuries all over her body. Hence, the learned counsel vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions.

6. Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days after lifting of lock down or the commencement of the Court's normal functioning whichever is earlier, before the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Krishnagiri, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that: [a] the petitioners and the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;

[b] the petitioners are directed to report before the respondent police on every Saturday at 10.30 a.m., until further orders;

[c] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial; [d] the 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 petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners released on anticipatory 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 229A IPC.

7.With the above directions, the Criminal Original Petition is ordered accordingly.

-sd/- 10/01/2022 This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned TRUE COPY Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104.

TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, NO.II, KRISHNAGIRI 2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE KRISHNAGIRI [FOR INFOMATION].

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KRISHNAGIRI TALUK POLICE STATION, KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT 4 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

+1 CC to M/S.N.SUREKA Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.NO.433 CRL OP.353/2022 Date :10/01/2022 JPA 12/01/2022