Ajay v. The State Rep By Its,

P.DHANABAL, J.

The petitioner who apprehends arrest for the alleged offences under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 109(1) and 351(3) of the BNS Act and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 in Crime No.336 of 2024, on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail. 2.

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and the de facto complainant had wordy quarrel as a result of which the de facto complainant was attacked by the petitioner and other accused persons. Hence, the complaint.

3.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had not committed any offence as alleged and the petitioner had been falsely implicated in this case. He submitted that the petitioner is willing to furnish substantial sureties for his due release and abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court and therefore, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner .

4.

The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that the petitioner had posted the photographs of the de facto complainant in social media and a dispute arouse between them. Subsequently, the petitioner and other accused persons attacked and injured the de facto complainant and that there is no previous case as against the petitioner and considering the gravity of offence, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 5.

Considering the representations made by both sides and considering the nature of offences charged against the petitioner and that there is no previous case as against the petitioner and as the injured was discharged from hospital and further, taking into consideration of the fact that other co-accused were arrested and released on bail, 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/her appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order before the Judicial Magistrate Uthiramerur, Kanchipuram on condition that the petitioner 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 respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that: [a] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police everyday, for thirty days.

[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 him from disclosing such facts of 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] the petitioner shall make himself/herself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required. [f] 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 P.DHANABAL, J.

vca

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].

[g] If the petitioner thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.

18.09.2024 vca