Deenadayalan v. The State Rep.By
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA , J.
The petitioner, who apprehends arrest for the alleged offences under Sections 308, 333, 114 of IPC r/w. sections 184 & 188 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in Crime No.79 of 2023 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant/Mohan - Sub Inspector of Police, E2 Royapettah Police Station is that he was deputed duty to attend vehicle check up along with one Elango/Special Sub Inspector and Jayakumar/Grade I Constable. While they were on duty at R.K.Salai near Nilgiris Point on 05.03.2023 at about 04.30 a.m., a car bearing Reg.No.TN 11 BC 1542 which was driven from West to East in a rash and negligent manner had dashed against the barricade, parapet wall and officials on duty and due to which the said Jayakumar sustained grievous injuries. The defacto complainant and others shouted at the driver of the car to stop the vehicle and the car stopped after some distance and the driver and the other persons in the car were found to be in an inebriated
condition and they were asked to undergo breath analyzer test. They refused to undergo the same and escaped from the scene of occurrence. It is also found that the breath analyser machine and mobile phone of the said Jayakumar were thrown away from the spot and found missing. Due to the accident, the said Jayakumar sustained injuries and he was in an unconcious stage, the defacto complainant and others took him to the Royapettah Government Hospital for treatment and the incident was duly informed to the higher officials. Hence, the complaint.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that this is the second anticipatory bail application. The petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely roped in this case. He would further submit that other than being a co-passenger in the car, he has not committed any offence. He would further submit that without prejudice, the petitioner is ready to give an ex-gratia amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the wife of the victim for his medical expenses and today, he has also handed over the said amount to the wife of the victim namely Kumutha, who has been identified by the respondent Police before this Court. He would further submit that co-
accused in this case has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.6047 of 2023 dated 29.03.2023. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that when the defacto complainant and his party were involved in regular vehicle check up, the petitioner along with other occupants of the car who were in an inebriated condition had driven the car bearing No.TN 11 BC 1542 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the barricade and parapet wall and due to which the said Jayakumar sustained grievous injuries and the accused after creating ruckus and throwing away the breath analyser, fled away from the scene of occurrence. He would also submit that initially the injured was admitted in the Royapettah Government Hospital and since his condition got critical, he was shifted to Apollo Hospital for better treatment. He would further submit that as on date the family members of the injured had spent more than a sum of Rs.15 lakhs towards medical expenses. He would submit that two persons namely Kishore/A1 and Lingam were arrested along with car. He would
further submit that the investigation is still pending to fix the driver and the bail applications in respect of the arrested accused are also still pending. Hence, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail. 5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate and perused the entire materials available on record.
6. Merely, because the petitioner has made an ex- gratia payment to the victim, it would not amount to admission of his guilt. Therefore, it is open to the trial Court to deal with the case independently. 7.Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by either side and also considering that the petitioner has voluntarily handed over a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as an exgratia payment to the victim/Jeyakumar towards the medical expenses today, 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 on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate No.XXII, Egmore, Allikulam Complex, Chennai, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties 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 daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders;
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA , J.
mpa [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;
10.04.2023 mpa