Dravidan@Satheeshkumar v. The State Rep By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Twenty Fifth day of February Two Thousand Twenty Two PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice R. PONGIAPPAN CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.4669 of 2022 DRAVIDAN @ SATHEESHKUMAR [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ] Vs THE STATE REP BY [ RESPONDENT ] INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VELLAVEDU POLICE STATION, THIRUVALLUR DISTRICT.

(CRIME NO.39 OF 2022) For Petitioner : M/S.M.VINOTH Advocate For Respondent : MR.S.SANTHOSH, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner, who apprehends arrest for the alleged offences under Sections 447, 294(b), 323 and 506(i) of IPC, in Crime No.39 of 2022, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that due to the wordy quarrel, the petitioner had abused the defacto complainant in filthy language and also attacked him. Hence, the present case. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any such offences as alleged by the prosecution. He further submits that he has been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

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 no one has sustained injury in this present case.

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

6. The respondent police registered a case against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 294(b), 323 and 506(i) of IPC. Admittedly, there was a wordy quarrel between the parties and nobody has sustained injury.

7. Taking note of all the above said aspects into consideration and having regard to the nature of the offence committed by the petitioner, this Court came to the conclusion that for the completion of investigation, custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary in this case. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions. 8.Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the Judicial Magistrate Court II, Poonamallee, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.

(b) the petitioner shall report before the respondent police on every 10.00 a.m., for a period of fifteen (15) days and thereafter as and when required for interrogation.

(c)the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

(d)the petitioner 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 petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner 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/- 25/02/2022 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 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, NO.II, POONAMALLEE.

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE THIRUVALLUR [FOR INFORMATION].

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VELLAVEDU POLICE STATION, THIRUVALLUR DISTRICT.

4 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

+1 CC to M/S.M.VINOTH Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.NO.3052 CRL OP.4669/2022 Date :25/02/2022 JPA 28/02/2022