Pradap v. State Rep.By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 12.09.2024

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.DHANABAL Pradap ... Petitioner Vs.

The State represented by, The Station House Officer, Neyveli Thermal Police Station, Cuddalore District.

(Crime No. 163 of 2024).

... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail, in Crime No. 163 of 2024 on the file of the respondent Police.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Kasirajan For Respondent : Mr.S.Vinothkumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

O R D E R

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 26.07.2024, for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 126(2), 1/6

296(b), 118(1) and 109 of BNS Act, in Crime No.163 of 2024, on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 25.07.2024, when the petitioner was riding in a two-wheeler, the petitioner along with other accused persons attacked the defacto complainant with a wooden log on his head, causing injuries to him. Hence, the complaint.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. He further submit that the petitioner was arrested and is in judicial custody for more than 35 days and is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed bail for the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that there are totally two accused in this case and the petitioner herein is ranked as A2. He further submits that due to a matrimonial dispute, the defacto complainant and his wife were separated. 2/6

The defacto complainant's wife had an illegal affair with the petitioner's father, thereafter, the defacto complainant's wife wants to live with the defacto complainant, for which the petitioner along with other accused attacked the defacto complainant with a wooden log on his head, causing injuries to him. He further submits that the injured was discharged from the hospital. He further submits that the petitioner has no previous case, pending against him. However, he opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record including the First Information Report.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, the nature of offence, and also considering the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, and taking note of the fact that the injured was discharged from the hospital and the petitioner has no previous case pending against him, and also considering all others factors, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, subject to certain conditions. 3/6

7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail 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 District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Neyveli, and on further conditions that:- [a] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police everyday at 10.30 a.m, until further orders.

[b] the Petitioner shall not commit any offences of similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, or of the commission of which he is suspected;

[c] 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

[d] the Petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

[e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial 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 4/6

himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560]; and [f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.

12.09.2024 drl To 1.The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Neyveli.

2.The Station House Officer, Neyveli Thermal Police Station, Cuddalore District.

3.The Superintendent, District Prison, Cuddalore District.

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

P.DHANABAL, J.

5/6

drl 12.09.2024 6/6