Ramadevi v. The State Rep By

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.

The petitioner apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(2) of IPC in Crime No.100 of 2024, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.

The case of the prosecution is that, as per the defacto complainant one Mugundan, the petitioner along with other accused abused, assaulted the defacto complainant with wooden log and further threatened the defacto complainant with dire consequences. Hence, this case. 3.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and due to previous enmity between the petitioner and the defacto complainant, a quarrel aroused. He also further submitted that a case in counter in Crime No.101 of 2024 was registered against the defacto complainant. He would further submit that the petitioner along with other accused were granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 1/4

25.03.2024 in Crl.O.P.No.6506 of 2024, however, due to illness and inconvenience, the petitioner was unable to furnish sureties within the prescribed period, hence the earlier anticipatory bail order got lapsed. He would further submit that the petitioner is ready to produce solvent sureties and to abide with any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and also to appear and co-operate for the investigation, therefore, he prayed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4.

Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police opposed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, stating that due to previous enmity, the petitioner along with other accused had abused and assaulted the defacto complainant with wooden log. He would further submit that a case in counter was also registered. 5.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police and perused the materials available on record including the FIR. 6.

Taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions. 2/4

7.

Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on her appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Uthukkottai on condition that the petitioner shall execute a 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 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 petitioner 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 petitioner shall report before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation. [c] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

3/4

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.

stn [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 Section 269 B.N.S.

19.11.2024 stn 4/4