Kumaresan v. The State Rep.By
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28.01.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI Crl.O.P.No.1847 of 2022
1. Kumaresan
...Petitioners
2. Partheeban
3. Bala Subramani
4. Shanthi
5. Indirani
6. Jayalakshmi
7. Sasi Vs.
The State rep by Sub Inspector of Police, Nemili Police Station, Nemili Taluk, Ranipet District.
(Crime No.23 of 2022) ... Respondent Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest by the respondent in Crime No.23 of 2022 on the file of the Sub Inspector of Police, Nemili Police Station, Nemili Taluk, Ranipet District. .
For Petitioners : Ms.N.Kohila For Respondent : Mr.N.S.Suganthan Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
The petitioners, who apprehend arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 147, 448, 294(b) and 506(ii) of IPC and Section 4 of the Women Harassment Act in Cr.No.23 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners and the defacto complainant are adjacent land owners and there was a dispute between the petitioners and the defacto complainant's son regarding enjoyment of their respective properties, due to which, the petitioners abused the defacto complainant in filthy words,
threatened her with dire consequences and harassed her threatened her with dire consequences and caused injuries on her. Hence, the complaint.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have not been committed any such offence as alleged by the prosecution and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that already a Civil Suit in O.S.No.160 of 2021 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Arakkonam is pending between the son of the defacto complainant and the petitioners and their father. The above suit was filed by the defacto complainant's Son for the relief of declaration He further submits that there was a case in counter. Hence, the learned counsel prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl side) on instructions submits that the injured had discharged from the hospital. However, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
5. Considering the submissions made by both counsel and also considering the fact that the the injured had discharged from the hospital , this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
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 lockdown or the commencement of the Court's normal functioning whichever is earlier, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Arakkonam, Ranipet District on condition that the petitioners shall execute separate bonds for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each 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 Court concerned may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;
(b)the petitioners shall report before the respondent police as and when required for an interrogation;
(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 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]; and; (f)if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229-A IPC.
-sd/- 28/01/2022 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, ARAKKKONAM, RANIPET DISTRICT.
2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE VELLORE [FOR INFORMATION] 3 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NEMILI POLICE STATION, NEMILI TALUK, RANIPET DISTRICT.
4 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.
+1CC to M/S.A.GOUTHAMAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.No.1315 CRL OP.1847/2022 Date :28/01/2022 CSK 11/02/2022