K.Chandru Kumar v. State Rep By
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Section 379 IPC in Crime No.252 of 2022, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner had committed theft of batteries in the Airtel Mobile Tower, Palinepet. Hence, the defacto complainant, who is the supervisor of the Indus tower lodged the complaint as against the petitioner.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that the petitioner had committed theft of batteries in the Airtel Tower, Palinepet. He would further submit that the stolen property has not been recovered from the petitioner and there is one previous case similar in nature pending as against the petitioner in Cr.No.242 of 2022, in which
he had been arrested and remanded to judicial custody and thereafter, he was let out on bail. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent was well aware of the earlier case in Cr.No.242 of 2022 as the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody. He would also submit that the petitioner is only aged about 22 years. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, 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 his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Arakkonam on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties, of which one should be a blood related surety either the father or mother of the petitioner, 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 petitioner 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 petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders.
[c] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.
[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 abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.
19.10.2022 Anu A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
Anu
19.10.2022