Prince Jacob v. State Rep By The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Twenty Fourth day of February Two Thousand Twenty Two PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice R. PONGIAPPAN CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.3982 of 2022 AND CRL.MP.No.2426 OF 2022 1 PRINCE JACOB [ PETITIONERS / ACCUSED ] 2 PRIYADARSHINI Vs STATE REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, [ RESPONDENT ] KOLATHUR POLICE STATION, CHENNAI DISTRICT CRIME NO.83 OF 2022.

For Petitioner : M/S.V.SASIREKHA Advocate For Respondent : MR. S.SANTHOSH, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) For Intervenor : M/S E.GOMATHI Advocate PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners, who apprehend arrest for the alleged offences under Sections 448, 294(b), 323 & 506(1) of IPC and 4 of Women Harassment Act in Crime No.83 of 2022, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that on the occurrence day, there was a wordy quarrel between the defacto complainant and the petitioners who are neighbours. At that time, the petitioners assaulted the defacto complainant with hands. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any such offences as alleged by the prosecution. He further submits that due to previous dispute, this false case has been foisted as against the petitioners. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent Police raised objection stating that the investigation is pending. However he fairly admits that the person who sustained injury is now discharged from the hospital after completing treatment.

5. Submissions made by the learned Counsel on either side are considered.

6. The respondent police registered a case against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 294(b), 323 & 506(1) of IPC and 4 of Women Harassment Act. Admittedly, the injured discharged from the hospital.

7. Taking note of all the above said aspects into consideration and having regard to the nature of the offence committed by the petitioners, this Court came to the conclusion that for the completion of investigation, custodial interrogation of the petitioners may not be necessary in this case. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions.

8. Accordingly, the 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 XIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai on condition that the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five 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 and on further condition that:

(a) the petitioners and the sureties shall affix his 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) since the second petitioner is having new born baby, she is directed to appear before the respondent police only whenever required for investigation; the first petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.00 a.m., for a period of fifteen

(15) days and thereafter, as and when required for investigation. (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 themselves 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 abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229-A IPC.

Accordingly, the intervening petition in Crl.MP.No.2426 of 2022 is dismissed.

-sd/- 24/02/2022 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 XIII METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE COURT, EGMORE, CHENNAI 2 THE CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, EGMORE, CHENNAI(FOR INFORMATION) 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOLATHUR POLICE STATION, CHENNAI DISTRICT 4 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

CC to M/S.V.SASIREKHA Advocate on payment of necessary charges Sr.2874 CC to M/S.E.GOMATHI Advocate on payment of necessary charges Sr.2969 CRL OP.3982/2022 AND CRL.MP.No.2426 OF 2022 Date :24/02/2022 RVR 02/03/2022