Gayathri v. The State Rep By Its,

P. DHANABAL.J., The petitioners apprehend arrest for the alleged offences under Sections 189(3), 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 351(3) of BNS r/w.Section 4 of TamilNadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act in Crime No.591 of 2024, on the file of the respondent police seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that there was a property dispute pending between the defacto-complainant and the petitioner, due to which there was wordy quarrel arose between them and they used filthy language and assaulted the defacto-complainant and threatened him with dire consequences. Hence the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that these petitioners are innocent persons and they have not indulged in any illegal activities as alleged by the prosecution and they have been falsely implicated in this case by the respondent police. There is no previous case as against these petitioners. Hence, he seek anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that there was property dispute pending between the parties, due to which there was wordy quarrel between them and they assaulted the defactocomplainant. In this case, the injured person was discharged from hospital. There is a case in counter pending against the Defacto-complainant. There is no previous case as against these petitioners. However, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

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 there was a property dispute between the parties, the injured person was discharged from hospital, there is a case in counter pending against the defacto-complainant, there is no previous case against the petitioners and also considering other aspects, this court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to the following conditions:

7. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vaniyambadi on condition that the petitioners shall execute separate 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 petitioners shall report before the respondent police on every Sunday at 10.00a.m. for the period of four weeks;

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

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

[d] the petitioners 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 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].

[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.25454 of 2024 17.10.2024