T.Mahendran v. State Rep.By

Crl.O.P.No.8084 of 2016 K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J.

The petitioner, who is the sole accused, apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 294[b], 324 and 506[ii] of IPC in Crime No.271 of 2016 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that there was a wordy quarrel between the petitioner and the de facto complainant, in which, the petitioner attacked the de facto complainant with tube light and caused injuries. 3.Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.

4.Learned Government Advocate [Criminal Side] appearing for the respondent submitted that the injured has been discharged from the hospital and there is no previous case as against the petitioner. 5.Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the injured has been discharged from the hospital and there is no previous case as against the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J.

sri 6.Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dharapuram and on his executing 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 the petitioner shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.00a.m. until further orders. The petitioner shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously. 7.The petitioner shall appear before the concerned Magistrate within a period of 15 days from the date on which the order copy made ready, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail stands dismissed. 11.04.2016 sri Crl.O.P.No.8084 of 2016