Samuvel v. State Rep. By

P. DHANABAL.J., The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offences under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 296(b), 329(3), 115(2), 118(1), 324(4), 351(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita in Crime No.279 of 2024, on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that due to previous enmity, the petitioner and other accused persons have entered into the defactocomplainant's house and attacked the husband of the defacto-complainant and caused injuries and also damaged the household articles and ran away from the spot. Hence the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that this petitioner is an innocent person and he had not indulged in any illegal activities as alleged by the prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in this case by the respondent police. There is no previous case as against this petitioner. Hence, he seeks anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that due to previous enmity, the petitioner and other accused persons have entered into the defacto-complainant's house and attacked the husband of the defacto-complainant and caused injuries and also damaged the household articles and ran away from the spot. In this case, injured persons were discharged from hospital. There is no previous case as against this petitioner. However, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Heard both side and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the rival submissions on either side, considering the nature of offence and considering that there is a family dispute between the parties, the injured persons were discharged from hospital, there is no previous case is pending against the petitioner and also considering other aspects, this court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions:

7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai 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 learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that:

[a] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police on every Saturday at 10.00a.m. for the period of four weeks;

[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 dissaude him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

[c] the petitioner shall not leave India without the prior permission of the Court.

[d] the petitioner shall not abscond 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 absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section269 B.N.S.2023.

17.10.2024 gvn

P.DHANABAL,J gvn Crl.O.P.No.25390 of 2024 17.10.2024