E.Ezhaiyammal v. State Of Tamil Nadu Rep.By
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 324, 323 and 307 of IPC in Crime No.101 of 2023, seek anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution as per the defacto complainant Murugan is that due to previous enmity on account of land dispute, the accused have assaulted him and his wife with knife. Due to which, they sustained severe injuries on head. Hence, the complaint.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He would submit that the petitioners are none other than the sister and brother-in-law of the defacto complainant. He would submit that this is a second anticipatory bail and the earlier application for anticipatory bail was dismissed on 07.03.2023 in Crl.O.P.No.4952 of
2023. It was submitted that the victims were still in the hospital and the investigation is at the initial stage. However, he would submit that the victims have now been discharged from the hospital and major part of the investigation is also over. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
4. The learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that the petitioners and the defacto complainant are close relatives. Due to family dispute, the petitioners have assaulted the defacto complainant with Aruval resulting him sustaining injuries. However, he would submit that the victims have been discharged from the hospital and the investigation is pending. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) for the respondent and perused the entire materials available on record.
6.Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case
and that submissions made by the learned counsel and also of the fact that the injured has been discharged from the hospital, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions.
7.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 on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Ulundurpet, on condition that each of the petitioners shall execute a separate 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 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.
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
mpa [b] the petitioners shall stay at Chennai and report before the Inspector of Police, North Beach Police Station every day at 10.30 a.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter, report before the respondent police every day 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 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.
30.03.2023 mpa