Harikrishnan And One Another v. State Rep By
P. DHANABAL, J.
The petitioners / accused, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 498 A, 294(b), 323, 324, 494 and 506(1) of BNS and Section 4 of the Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 in Crime No.41 of 2024, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the first petitioner is the husband and the second petitioner is the father-in-law of the de facto complainant and they have demanded dowry from the de facto complainant and attacked her with wooden log and threatened her with dire consequences. Hence the complaint.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the petitioners are innocent and they have not involved in the offences as alleged by the prosecution and the respondent police had falsely implicated them in this case. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
1/6
4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) for the respondent would submit that the de facto complainant is the wife of the first petitioner and there was a wordy quarrel between the de facto complainant and the petitioners and due to which the petitioners abused her in filthy language and attacked her with wooden log. He would further submit that the de facto complainant suffered minor injuries and she has been discharged from the hospital. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
6. Considering the relationship between the parties and considering the fact that there are no previous cases as against the petitioners and also considering the nature of offences and considering the fact that the injured was discharged from the hospital, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the petitioners are ordered to be released on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the 2/6
date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tirukoilur, on condition that the petitioners 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 learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that:
[a] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police on every Saturday at 10.30 a.m. for a period of eight weeks. [b] the petitioners shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
[c] the petitioners shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court;
[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 3/6
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 269 B.N.S.2023.
22.08.2024 bkn 4/6
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate, Tirukoilur
2. The Inspector of Police, Thirukoilur All Women Police Station, Villupuram District.
3.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.
5/6
P.DHANABAL, J.
bkn CRL OP.No.19937 of 2024 22.08.2024 6/6