Danaraja.P @ Dhanaraja v. The State Rep By

P.DHANABAL, J.

The petitioners apprehend arrest for the alleged offences under Section 189(2), 324(2), 351(3) of B.N.S. R/w Section 3(1) of TN Public Property (Prevent of Damage & Loss) Act, 1992 in Crime No.462 of 2024, on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail. 2.

The case of the prosecution is that due to some civil dispute, the petitioners had unlawfully evicted the defacto complainant from the possession without following the due process of law. Further the petitioners used filthy words as against the defacto complainant. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are an innocent person and they have not committed any such offence as alleged by the prosecution. The petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. However, on instructions, the learned counsel further submits that the petitioners are ready and willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

1/5

4.

The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that due to some civl dispute, the petitioners had unlawfully evicted the defacto complainant from the possession without following the due process of law. Further the petitioners used filthy words as against the defacto complainant and he further submitted that there is no previous case pending against the petitioners. However, he opposed to grant bail to the petitioners. 5.

Considering the representations made by both sides and considering the nature of offences charged against the petitioners and there is a civil dispute pending between the parties and also considering that there is no previous case pending against the petitioners, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions.

6.

Accordingly, the petitioners are 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 Learned V Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore on condition that the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten 2/5

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 petitioners shall report before the respondent Police on every Saturday at 10.30 a.m, until further orders; [b] the petitioners 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 petitioners shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

[d] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

[e] the petitioners 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 3/5

action against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners 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 petitioners thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.

03.10.2024 nsl 4/5

P.DHANABAL, J.

nsl 03.10.2024 5/5