Ramasamy v. Inspector Of Police
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323 and 506(i) of IPC read with Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002, in Crime No.344 of 2022, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution as per the de facto complainant K.Ramasamy is that on 27.12.2022 at about 1.00 p.m., due to previous enmity on account of property dispute, there was a quarrel between the petitioner and the de facto complainant and at that time, the petitioner had abused the de facto complainant with filthy language, assaulted him and criminally intimidated him. Hence the case.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and a false case has been foisted against him on account of property dispute. He would further submit that it is a case
and case in counter and on the complaint given by the petitioner, a counter case in Crime No.345 of 2023 has been registered against the de facto complainant for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 324 and 506(ii) of IPC. He would also submit that the petitioner is ready and willing to furnish solvent sureties and to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed on him. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondent would submit that it is a case and case in counter. He would further submit that on account of property dispute, the petitioner had entered into a wordy quarrel with the de facto complainant, abused him with filthy language, attacked and criminally intimidated the de facto complainant. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5. Heard both sides and perused the entire materials available on record.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and also the submission of both sides, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.
7. 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 on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dharapuram, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five 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 petitioner 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 petitioner shall report before the respondent police every day at 10.30 a.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter every Saturday at 10.30 a.m., until further orders.
[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].
[f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.
20.03.2023 arb
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
arb 20.03.2023