M.Vinoth @ Mechanic Vinoth v. State Rep. By

P. DHANABAL.J., The petitioner / Accused who apprehends arrest in the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 397 and 506(ii) of IPC in connection with the Cr. No.78 of 2024, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is on 10.04.2024, the petitioner along with four other accused, restrained the defacto complainant in Azeez Nagar Main Road and demanded money and when the defacto complainant refused to give, the accused abused the defacto complainant in filthy language and subsequently snatched a sum of Rs.1,500/- from the defacto complainant at the knife point. Hence the complaint.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent, that the petitioner has not involved in the crime, that he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and that he is ready to abide by any condition imposed by this Court. Hence he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police would contend that the petitioner along with co-

accused has demanded money and when the defacto complainant refused to give money, the accused abused the defacto complainant in filthy language, snatched Rs.1,500/- at the knife point and hence he objected for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Further he submitted that the co-accused A1 to A3 were secured and released on bail and there is no previous case pending against the petitioner.

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

6. Considering the arguments putforth on either side, considering the nature of offences charged against the petitioner, considering the fact that A1 to A3 were secured and released on bail, that the amount was recovered from the accused 1 to 3 and considering the absence of bad antecedents against the petitioner, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions:

7. 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 XVII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai-15 on condition that

the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each 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 daily at 10.00 a.m. for a period of 30 days and thereafter as and when required for investigation.

[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 them 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.

10.09.2024 mjs To 1.The XVII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai-15 2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

3.The Inspector of Police, R2 Kodambakkam Police Station, Chennai. P.DHANABAL,J mjs CRL O.P. No.21895 of 2024

10.09.2024