Vijaya v. State Rep.By
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 31.08.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA Crl.O.P.Nos.13258 of 2020 1.Vijaya ... Petitioners 2.Hemalatha Vs.
State represented by ... Respondent The Inspector of Police, Veppankuppam Police Station, Vellore District.
(Crime No.660/2020) Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.660/2020 pending on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioners : Mr. E.Kannadasan For Respondent : Mr. M.Mohamed Riyaz Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(The case has been heard through video conference) The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences publishable under Sections 294 (b), 323, 324 & 506(i) IPC in Cr. No.660 of 2020, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution as per the de facto complainant is that there was family dispute with regard to visitation rights of child of the second petitioner and when the de facto complainant visited the child at the second petitioner's house there was wordy quarrel between the de facto complainant and the petitioners, due to which they have assaulted the de facto complainant and he sustained injury. Hence the complaint.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Therefore, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that there are totally four accused in this case the petitioners are arrayed as A3 and A4 respectively. He further submitted that the second petitioner is the wife of the de facto complainant and the first petitioner is the mother of the second petitioner. He further submitted that there was family dispute with regard to visitation rights of the child of the de facto complainant and while visiting the child, the de facto complainant was abused and assaulted by the petitioners causing injury and the injured discharged from the hospital. He further submitted that there are no previous case against the petitioners. However, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
5. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the injured has been discharged from the hospital and there are no previous case against the petitioners, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions.
[a] Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days after lifting of lockdown or the commencement of the Court's normal functioning whichever is earlier, before the learned Judicial Magistrate III, Vellore, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a separate 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: [b] 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.
[c] the petitioners 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.
[d] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial. [e] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.
[f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate 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 himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560]. [g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.
8. With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition is ordered.
-sd/- 31/08/2020 This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned TRUE COPY Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104.
TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.III, VELLORE.
2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE VELLORE. [FOR INFORMATION] 3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.
4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VEPPANKUPPAM POLICE STATION, VELLORE DISTRICT.
CC to M/S. E.KANNADASAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.13258/2020 Date :31/08/2020 TA-22/09/2020