Santhoshkumar v. State, Represented By

P. DHANABAL, J.

The petitioner / accused, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 393, 506(1) of IPC and Section 4-A of TN Prohibition Act, in Crime No.133 of 2024, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that while the de facto complainant was recording video in a street, the petitioner along with other accused threatened the de facto complainant and his friends with filthy language and told them not to record anything. Hence the complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner is innocent and without inquiring the true facts, 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 police would submit that the de facto complainant is a 'Youtuber' and while he was recording video in a locality, the petitioner along with other 1/4

accused, under the influence of alcohol, threatened and abused the de facto complainant in filthy language. He would further submit there are no previous case as against this petitioner and the co-accused were already granted bail. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

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

6. Considering the nature of offence and also considering the fact that the co-accused were already released on bail and no previous cases are pending against the petitioner and considering the nature of offence, 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 XIV Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, 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:

[a] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police on every 2/4

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.

21.08.2024 bkn P.DHANABAL, J.

3/4

bkn To

1. The XIV Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore.

2. The Inspector of Police, F-1, Chintadaripet Police station, Chennai District.

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

CRL OP.No.20210 of 2024 21.08.2024 4/4