Sahul Hameed v. State By
K.KUMARESH BABU, J.
The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in Crime No.18 of 2024 registered by the respondent Police for the offences under Sections 447, 465, 468, 471, 420, 506(ii) IPC r/w 120(B) IPC.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with two other accused made attempt to disconnect service connection in SC.No.03251-225-198 which stands in the name of one deceased Mabel Stephen, by using forged signature of the deceased and obtained electricity connection. It is further alleged that the accused joined together criminally trespassed into the property and permanently dismantled the electricity connection. When the defacto complainant questioned the same, they abused the defacto complainant with filthy language and criminally intimidated him. Hence, the complaint.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has not committed any such offence as alleged by the prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He would further 1/5
submit that they agreed to sell the land for Rs.1,45,00,000/- but after, receipt of Rs.12 lakhs, the same was handed over to the petitioner in the year 2015 and the petitioner is running catering business by putting up sheds. There is no necessity for the petitioner to file an application to shift the electricity board connection. He further submits that the petitioner also filed suits in O.S.Nos.2549 of 2015, 923 of 2015 and 611 of 2023. Hence, he prays for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner 4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submit that Daisy Liese, the daughter of Mabel Stephen was in the possession and enjoyment of the property. He further submits that by using the signature of the deceased Mabel Stephen, the petitioner disconnected the service connection and the RDO report from the electricity board was also pending. He further submits that several suits are also pending. He further submits that the investigation is also completed. Hence, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and also the submission made by the learned counsel for both sides, this 2/5
Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
6. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on her appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VII, Coimbatore, Coimbatore District, 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 as and when required for interrogation.
[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;
3/5
[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;
09.05.2024 gd 4/5
K.KUMARESH BABU, J.
gd 09.05.2024 5/5