Karpagajothi v. The Station House Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 22.11.2022

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA Karpagajothi ... Petitioner Vs.

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

(Crime No.897/2022).

... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with the Crime No.897 of 2022, pending investigation on the file of the respondent Police. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Saravanan For Respondent : Mr.C.E.Pratap Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervener : Mr.V.Sivaraman 1/7

O R D E R

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 30.10.2022, for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 294(b) 324, 506(ii) and 307 IPC, in Crime No.897 of 2022, on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution as per the de-facto complainant Silambu Selvi is that on 07.10.2022, while she was going along with her husband, the accused waylaid them and by saying that if the de-facto complainant's husband/victim interferes them in support of one Suseela, he would be done to death. Then, A1 had inflicted severe injuries on the head of the de-facto complainant's husband with knife and the other accused who were standing with A1 had instructed A1 to inflict injuries on the victim. Hence, the case.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and she has been falsely roped-in in this case. He further submitted that there was a dispute between the petitioner's 2/7

family and the de-facto complainant's family, due to which, a false complaint has been given against the petitioner's entire family. He also submitted that ever as per the First Information Report, only the first accused had inflicted injuries on the victim and there is no specific overt act as against this petitioner. He also stated that the petitioner was arrested on 30.10.2022 and she is in custody for more than 20 days and further submitted that injured has also been discharged from the hospital, hence, he prayed to grant bail to the petitioner.

4. The Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that on account of the property dispute, the petitioner along with the other accused waylaid the de-facto complainant and her husband and assaulted the de-facto complainant's husband with knife, due to which, he sustained grievous injuries. He further submitted that the injured has been discharged from the hospital, however, he vehemently opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the Intervener vehemently opposed to grant bail to the petitioner stating that the petitioner along with her sister and 3/7

mother had instigated the first accused to inflict serious injuries on the victim, due to which, he was admitted in hospital with grievous injuries for more than 2 weeks and discharged from the hospital very recently.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) and perused the materials available on record.

7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel and also considering the allegation against the petitioner that she had instigated the main accused, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

8. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on her executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Viruthachalam, and on further conditions that:

4/7

[a] 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 stay at Chennai and report before the Inspector of Police, Flower Bazaar Police Station everyday at 10.30 a.m., until further orders;

[c] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

[d] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness 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.

22.11.2022 ham 5/7

To

1. The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Viruthachalam.

2. The Station House Officer, Virudhachalam Police Station, Cuddalore District.

3. The Sub Jail, Cuddalore.

4. The Inspector of Police, Flower Bazaar Police Station, Chennai.

5. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

6/7

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA.,J.

ham 22.11.2022 7/7