C.Aravind 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 296(b), 115(2), 118(1) and 351(3) of Bharathya Nyaya Sankhita, 2023 in Crime No.253 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 Jay Samsan, the petitioner along with other accused abused and assaulted the victim, who was standing with the defacto complainant with knife and caused injuries to the victim. Hence, this case
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and no way connected with the alleged offence and he has been falsely implicated in the case. He also further submitted that the main accused one Mouli attacked the victim due to previous enmity, whereas this petitioner, who tried to stop the fight, was arrayed as an accused, based on the complaint given by the defacto complainant. He would further submit that a complaint was lodged in counter in Crime No.252 of 2024 and 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 the petitioner along with other accused had abused and assaulted the victim using knife, thereby the victim had suffered injuries. He would further submit that the injured has been discharged from the hospital and there is also a case in counter.
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 and considering the fact that the injured has been discharged from the hospital, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.
7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on 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, Egmore, 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 his Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;
[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police everyday at 10:30 a.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter, every Saturday at 10:30 a.m., until further orders.
[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;
[e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
dsn 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 abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S.
28.11.2024 dsn