Sudha v. The State Rep By
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 30.11.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI Crl.O.P.No.22791 of 2021
1. Sudha
...Petitioners
2. Palani
3. Devi
4. Elumalai
Versus
State Represented by
...Respondent
Inspector of Police, K-10, Koyambedu Police Station, Chennai, (Crime No.1094 of 2021) PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.1094 of 2021 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police.
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Shankar For Respondent : Mr.N.S,Suganthan Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence under Sections 147, 148, 353, 307 and 506(ii) of IPC in Crime No.1094 of 2021, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that on the date of occurrence, the Executive Officer of Arulmigu Marga Sagaya Easwarar Temple, Maduravoyal along with other H.R. & C.E higher official went to petitioners' s premises to lock and seal as the premises belonged to the said temple. During that time, the petitioners wantonly restrained the defacto complainant and other officials from discharging their official duty. Further, they threatened them by pouring kerosene on themself in order to avoid lock and seal procedures by the authorities. Thereby, the law enforcing agency registered a case against the petitioners.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and they have been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that the petitioners wantonly restrained the defacto complainant and other officials from discharging their official duty and poured kerosene on themself in order to avoid the lock and seal procedures of the authorities. He further submitted that the investigation is almost completed. However, he vehemently opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the investigation is almost completed, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions.
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 V Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, 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 and on further condition that: (a) if the petitioners fail to surrender before the concerned Magistrate within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, this order shall stand automatically cancelled;
(b) 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;
(c) the petitioners shall report before the respondent police on every Tuesday and Saturday at 10.30 a.m., until further orders.
(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/ 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;
(g) if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229-A IPC.
-sd/- 30/11/2021 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 METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, NO.V, EGMORE, CHENNAI.
2 THE CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, EGMORE, CHENNAI. [FOR INFORMATION] 3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.
4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, K-10, KOYAMBEDU POLICE STATION, CHENNAI.
+1 CC to M/S.S.SHANKAR Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.NO.13696 CRL OP.22791/2021 Date :30/11/2021 TA-07/12/2021.