Jeeva v. State Rep. By, The 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), 427 & 506(i) of IPC in Crime No.180 of 2023, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution as per the defacto complainant is that he running a Tea Stall at Pappatti Junction. On 21.03.2023, the petitioner went to the tea stall for buying bun and the same was stale. Therefore, the petitioner questioned about the expiry of the bun to the defacto complainant. Subsequently, there was a wordy quarrel arose between the petitioner and the defacto complainant. During quarrel, the petitioner had abused and assaulted the defacto complainant with filthy language and also taken a bun container and thrown it away. Hence the complaint.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in this case. He would submit that the defacto complainant was served with a stale bun and when it was questioned by the petitioner, a false complaint
has been given against him, 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 the petitioner went to the tea stall for buying bun and the same was stale. Therefore, the petitioner questioned about the expiry of the bun to the defacto complainant. Subsequently, there was a wordy quarrel arose between the petitioner and the defacto complainant. During quarrel, the petitioner had abused and assaulted the defacto complainant with filthy language and also taken a bun container and thrown it away. He would further submit that the injured has been discharged from the hospital. Hence, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner 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 the 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 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, Sulur, on condition that the petitioner 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, 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.
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
gbi [b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police everyday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of four 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.
gbi 11.04.2023 (2/2)