Arulselvam v. The State Rep By

P.DHANABAL,J.

The petitioners/A1 to A5 who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 191(2), 296(b), 115(2), 118(1) of BNS Act, 2023 in Crime No.419 of 2024 seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that there was dispute between the petitioners and the defacto complainant regarding construction work, due to which, the petitioners abused and attacked the defacto complainant and caused injuries to him . Hence, this case.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any such offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submits that there was a dispute between the parties regarding construction, wherein cement bags were kept in the pathway, due to which, the defacto complainant had abused and attacked the petitioners and caused injuries to him. He further submits there are one previous cases against the petitioners and they are ready to abide by any stringent conditions imposed by this Court. Therefore, he prays to grant

anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent submits that there was a dispute between the neighbours regarding construction, wherein the cement bags were kept in the pathway and caused disturbance to the defacto complainant , due to which, the petitioner had abused and assaulted the defacto complainant and caused injuries to him and the injured had already been discharged from the hospital. He further submits that there are two previous case against A1 and there are no previous against others. However, he vehemently opposed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the nature of offence and there was a dispute between the parties regarding construction and the injured had already been discharged from the hospital, though two previous cases are pending against A1, bail was granted in that case and the others have no previous against them and considering all other aspects, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory

bail to the petitioners with certain conditions.

7. 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-I, Cuddalore on condition that each of the petitioners shall execute separate bonds 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 Saturday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of four weeks. [b] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

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

[d] 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].

[e] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.

29.10.2024 Vv P.DHANABAL, J.

Vv 29.10.2024