← Library
Madras High CourtCRL OP/22446/2019closed

J.Vijayalakshmi v. The Superintendent Of Police

2019-08-21Honourable Mr Justice N. Anand Venkatesh6 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 01.12.2021

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI 1.D.Mani 2.M.Gopinath ... Petitioners Vs.

The State Represented by its The Inspector of Police, Vishnu Kanchi Police Station, Kanchipuram District.

Crime No.408 of 2021.

... Respondent Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 432 of Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest by the respondent police in Crime No. 408 of 2021 on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioners : Mr.M.Sathish Kumar For Respondent : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence under Sections 294(b), 324, and 506(ii) of IPC. in Crime No.408 of 2021, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners and the defacto complainant are the neighbours, both of them are residing in the front and back portions of the property. The defacto complainant had intent to construct his portion of the property and he had demolished the common place for access. When the same was questioned by the petitioners, there was wordy quarrel between them and thereby, the defacto complainant sustained injuries. Hence, the complaint.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that the petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the defacto complainant had intent to construct his portion of the property, he had demolished the common place for access. When the same was

questioned by the petitioners, he informed that he will construct the same after completion of his construction, which he had not kept up. Regarding the same, there was wordy quarrel between them, in which, the defacto complainant had assaulted and robbed the petitioners phone and gold chain. He further submits that though the petitioners were already granted anticipatory bail by this Court in Crl.OP.No.7602 of 2021 dated 23.04.2021 with a condition to execute the sureties, due to the medical emergency, the first petitioner could not execute the sureties on time, hence, the present petition.

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the injured person has been discharged from the hospital. However, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the injured has been discharged from the hospital and the petitioners have no previous cases against them, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

6.Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Kanchipuram, Kanchipuram District on condition that each of the petitioners shall execute a separate bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- each (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 and on further condition that:

(a) the petitioners and the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the Court concerned may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;

(b) the petitioners shall report before the respondent police on every Wednesday at 10.30 a.m for a period of four weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation; ( c) the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial; (d) the petitioners 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 petitioners in accordance with law as if the

conditions have been imposed and the petitioners 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]; and;

(f) if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229-A IPC.

01.12.2021 pbl To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kanchipuram, Kanchipuram District, 2.The Inspector of Police, Vishnu Kanchi Police Station, Kanchipuram District.

3. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

pbl 01.12.2021