Suresh v. State By

CRL.O.P.No.14046 of 2016 S.VAIDYANATHAN,J.

Apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 448, 354, 147, 148, 324, 506(ii) and 306 IPC in Crime No.358 of 2016 on the file of the respondent police, the petitioners have come forward with this petition seeking anticipatory bail. 2.

Heard both sides.

3.

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners are alleged to have assaulted the deceased on 25.04.2016 and due to the humiliation caused by the petitioners, the deceased is said to have committed suicide by self-immolation.

4.

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) vehemently opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners on the ground that investigation is in the preliminary stage and if the petitioners are released on bail, they will tamper the evidence and hinder investigation. He further submitted that the fourth petitioner alone is arrested. 5.

This Court has already rejected the anticipatory bail on 03.06.2016, but the respondent police did not take any steps to secure the accused. So far, it appears that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required by the respondent. Taking note of the fact that the respondent police did not take any steps to secure the accused till now, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners 1 to 3 and 5 and insofar as the 4th petitioner is concerned, this petition stands dismissed. Accordingly, the petitioners 1 to 3 and 5 are ordered to be released on bail in the event of their arrest or appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruttani, subject to the following conditions:

S.VAIDYANATHAN, J kal [a] Each of the petitioners 1 to 3 and 5 shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten 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;

[b] the petitioners 1 to 3 and 5 shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. for a period of two weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation;

[c] the petitioners 1 to 3 and 5 shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial; [d] the petitioners 1 to 3 and 5 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].

13.07.2016 kal CRL.O.P.No.14046 of 2016

Crl.O.P.No.12636 of 2016 S.VAIDYANATHAN, J., Mr.C.Ayyapparaj, learned Government Advocate [Crl. Side] on instructions, submits that this is a case of matrimonial dispute and that the defacto complainant lodged a complaint against the petitioners herein.

2.Considering the nature of allegation coupled with the fact that only a petition enquiry is pending in the matter in CSR.No.335 of 2016, the petitioners are directed to appear before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. for a period of one week and thereafter, as and when required for further enquiry. The respondent police is directed to complete the petition enquiry within a period of two months and shall either register a

case or drop further action.

Pending enquiry, the petitioners shall not be arrested.

3. With the above direction, this petition is disposed of.

21.06.2016 kal