Dhayanithi v. The Sub Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 11.10.2023 PRESENT The Hon`ble MR JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM Dhayanithi ... Petitioner/Sole Accused Vs The State represented by The Sub Inspector of Police, Velliyanai Police Station, Karur District.

... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.P.Muthusamy, Advocate For Respondent : Mrs.M.Aasha, Government Advocate(Crl.side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.293 of 2023 on the file of the Respondent Police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 506(i) IPC in Crime No.293 of 2023 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail. 1/6

2.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is working as sales man in TASMAC shop at Uppidamangalam. On 20.09.2023, at 02.00pm., the petitioner went to the TASMAC and picked up quarrel with the defacto complainant. Thereafter, the defacto complainant went house along with supervisor and at that time, the petitioner came there and attacked the defacto complainant with wooden-log. Hence, the case.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that the petitioner also gave a complaint as against the defacto complainant and the same was registered in Cr.No.294 of 2023. Hence, he seeks anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4.The learned Government Advocate(Crl.side) appearing for the respondent would submit that the petitioner picked up quarrel with the staff of the TASMAC shop. Hence, a case and counter case were registered as against the petitioner as well as the defacto complainant. She would further submit that the injured person has been discharged from the hospital.

2/6

5.On perusal of records, it is noticed that there was quarrel between the petitioner and the defacto complainant with regard to the selling of liquor bottled in TASMAC shop and it is also noticed that the injured person has already been discharged form the hospital.

6.Taking into consideration the principles stated by the Honourable Supreme Court in Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia Etc., vs. State of Punjab reported in 1980 AIR 1632 and Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2009)4 SCC 437 and Joginder Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others reported in (1994)4 SCC 260 and taking into consideration the origin of crime, it is seen that the offence alleged as against the petitioner is not a case of heinous crime. Further the petitioner is having permanent resident at Karur District. Hence the principles stated in Hussainara Khatoon & Ors vs. Home Secretary, State Of Bihar reported in AIR 1979 SC 1360 is taken into consideration. In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has cautioned that pre-trial detention is not be encouraged nor is to be encourageable pre-trial release on sureties; that if the Court is satisfied after taking into consideration that the accused has his roots in the community and is not likely to abscond, he can safely be released on his personal bond. 3/6

7.In view of the above, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 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 Judicial Magistrate No.2, Karur on condition that the petitioners shall execute a own bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) 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 shall affix his photograph 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 trial Court on summons. [c] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

4/6

[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 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 absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.

sd/- 11/10/2023 / TRUE COPY / /10/2023 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S. ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

GNS TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.II KARUR.

2 DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KARUR.

5/6

3 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE VELLIYANAI POLICE STATION, KARUR DISTRICT.

4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

+1 CC to M/s.P.MUTHUSAMY, Advocate ( SR-15051[I] dated 12/10/2023 )

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.18190 of 2023 Date :11/10/2023 SS/DD/SAR- /19/10/2023/6P/6C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 6/6