Murugesan v. The State Rep By Its

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

The petitioners who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 324 and 506(ii) of IPC in Crime No.675 of 2022, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant and his family went to the Tiruchendur Murugan Temple and as such on 19.11.2022, they returned back to the home and the door lock was broken and regarding the same, the defacto complainant questioned one Ramu/A1 who is the brother of the defacto complainant and thereby the quarrel arose between them and as a result of which, A1 along with the petitioners abused the defacto complainant and his son in filthy language and assaulted them with iron pipe and caused injuries to them. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any such 1/5

offence as alleged by the prosecution and they have been falsely implicated in this case. Therefore, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioners attacked the defacto complainant and his son and caused injuries to him. He would further submit that it is a case and case in counter. Hence, he would vehemently oppose to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by both counsel, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on 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-II, Mettur, Salem District on condition that the 2/5

petitioners shall execute separate bonds for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each, 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, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that:

[a] the petitioners and 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 petitioners shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. for a period of two weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation .

[c] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

[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 3/5

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 Section 229A IPC.

Vv 02.12.2922 4/5

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

Vv 02.12.2922 5/5