C.Murugan v. State Rep By Its
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
The petitioners who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 294(b), 324 and 506(ii) of IPC in Crime No.56 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the first petitioner is none other than the brother-in-law of the defacto complainant. Due to matrimonial dispute on account of the defacto complainant suspecting the fidelity of his wife, the petitioners joined together and assaulted the defacto complainant with hands and wooden log. Hence the complaint.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the first petitioner is none other than the brother-in-law of the defacto complainant. Due to family dispute, a false complaint has been foisted against them. He would further submit that A3 in this case has already been granted bail by the learned V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore in
Crl.M.P.No.31814 of 2022. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondent would submit that the first petitioner is none other than the brother-in-law of the defacto complainant. Due to matrimonial dispute on account of the defacto complainant suspecting the fidelity of his wife, the petitioners joined together and assaulted the defacto complainant with hands and wooden log. He would further submit that the injured has been discharged from the hospital. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
5. Heard the learned counsel. Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and also of the fact that the injured has been discharged from the hospital, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions.
6. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a separate bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five 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, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that:
[a] the petitioners and the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity.
[b] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police everyday at 10.30 a.m., until further orders. [c] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial. [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 of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560]. [f] If the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.
17.10.2022 vkr
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
vkr 17.10.2022