Madhan Alias Madhusudhanan v. State By

P. DHANABAL, J.

The petitioners / accused, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 118(1) and 351(3) of BNS, 2023 and Section 4 of the Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 in Crime No.610 of 2024, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the first petitioner picked up wordy quarrel with the husband of the de facto complainant and all the petitioners attacked him on his head with iron pipe, knife and wooden log and when the de facto complainant tried to save her husband, the fourth petitioner kicked the defacto complainant's daughter. 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.

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

respondent would submit that there was a wordy quarrel between the de facto complainant's husband and the petitioners and the petitioners attacked him with iron pipe and wooden log and due to which he sustained heavy injury. He would further submit that the injured has been discharged from 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 fact that the injured has been 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 date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vanur, Villupuram District, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- 2/6

(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 four weeks, except on 14.09.2024.

[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 himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State 3/6

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 District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vanur, Villupuram District

2. The Inspector of Police, Kiliyanur Police Station, Villupuram District.

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

5/6

P.DHANABAL, J.

bkn CRL OP.No.20293 of 2024 22.08.2024 6/6