Sahul Hameed v. The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep By

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA , J.

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest for the alleged offences under Sections 294(b), 323 and 506(i) of IPC @ Sections 294(b), 323 and 506(ii) of IPC in Crime No.149 of 2023 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution as per the defacto complainant/ Rajasekaran is that the accused, who had come in a innova car bearing registration No.TN 72 CA 1072, had waylaid his brother and abused him in a filthy language and also assaulted him with hands. Hence the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and a false complaint has been given by the defacto complainant, who is an advocate. He would further submit that there was a quarrel between the petitioner and brother of the defacto complainant, during which time, both of them have assaulted each other, other than that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that the petitioner is ready to abide by any

stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (crl.side) appearing for the respondent Police would submit that the petitioner, who is a Ex-Police man and deserted his service, has abused the brother of the defacto complainant and slabbed him repeatedly, due to which, the victim has suffered shock. He would further submit that there is no previous case pending against the petitioner. However, 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) and perused the entire materials available on record.

6. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, 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 VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, 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. [b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent Police everyday 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;

17.04.2023 vkr

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA , J.

vkr 17.04.2023