Murugavel v. The State Rep By Its,

Crl.O.P.No.20955 of 2024 P.DHANABAL, J.

The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offences under Sections 296(2), 115(2), 127(2), 118(1), 109 and 351(3) of the BNS in Crime No.413 of 2024, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner had attacked the de facto complainant as a result of which he sustained injuries. Hence, the complaint.

3.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had not committed any offence as alleged and the petitioner had been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to furnish substantial sureties for his due release and abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court and therefore, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner . 1/5

4.

The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that the petitioner and the de facto complainant had wordy quarrel and hence, the de facto complainant was attacked by the petitioner and other accused and there is no previous case as against the petitioner and also considering the gravity of offences, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner . 5.

Considering the representations made by both sides and considering the nature of offences charged against the petitioner and that there is no previous case as against the petitioner and further, taking into consideration of the fact that that the injured was discharged from hospital, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

6.

Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on her appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order before the XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten 2/5

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] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police on every Saturday, until further orders. [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 then from disclosing such facts of 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] the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required. [f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate 3/5

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].

[g] If the petitioner thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.

05.09.2024 vca P.DHANABAL, J.

4/5

vca 05.09.2024 5/5