Sridhar v. State Rep.By

P. DHANABAL, J.

The petitioner / accused, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 118(1), 351(3) BNS, in Crime No.561 of 2024, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the de facto complainant's daughter is married to the petitioner and on 25.02.2024 the petitioner came to de facto complainant's house and there was a wordy quarrel between them and the petitioner abused the de facto complainant in filthy language and attacked him. Hence the complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the de facto complainant only attacked the petitioner and due to earlier dispute between them, the de facto complainant had given a false complainant against the petitioner. He would further submit that the petitioner is innocent and he has not involved in the offences as alleged by the prosecution and the respondent police had falsely implicated him in this case. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The Government Advocate (Criminal side) for the respondent 1/6

would submit that there was a family dispute between the father-in-law and son-in-law and due to which the petitioner abused the de facto complainant in filthy language and attacked him and due to which the de facto complainant had suffered minor injury. He would further submit that the injured has been discharged from hospital.

5. Heard both side and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the relationship between the parties and considering the fact that the injured has been discharged from hospital and also considering the nature of offences, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned District Munsifcum-Judicial Magistrate, Vanur, 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 learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that:

2/6

[a] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police on every Saturday at 10.30 a.m. for a period of four weeks. [b] the petitioner 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

[c] the petitioner shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court;

[d] the petitioner 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 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 269 B.N.S.2023.

3/6

21.08.2024 bkn 4/6

To

1. The District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Vanur

2. The Inspector of Police, F-2, Auroville Police Station, Vanur, Villupuram District.

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

5/6

P.DHANABAL, J.

bkn CRL OP.No.20067 of 2024 21.08.2024 6/6