Harish v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 07/12/2023 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice V. SIVAGNANAM Harish, ... Petitioner/Accused No.1 Vs The Inspector of Police, Periyakulam Police Station, Theni District.

(Crime No.341/2023)..

... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : S. Madhankumar,Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.RMS.Sethuraman, Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.341/2023 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 1/6

offences punishable under Section 294(b), 509, 354D(1)(ii) & 506(1) of IPC, in Crime No.341 of 2023, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner said to have went to the house of the defacto complainant and threatened her to arrange marriage between the petitioner and her daughter. When the same was refused by her, he posted the photos and videos of the daughter of the defacto complainant in the social media with an intention to affect her future.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that the petitioner and the daughter of the defacto complainant loved each other for more than 5 years and also they were in relationship. Due to communal issue, defacto complainant refused to perform marriage to them. Hence, he seeks anticipatory bail. 4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent police would submit that the investigation of this case is not yet completed. 2/6

5.Considering the nature of allegations levelled as against the petitioner and 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 petitioners is not a case of heinous crime. Further the petitioner is having permanent residence at Theni 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. 6.In view of the above, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

condition that the petitioner 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 his 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.

[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 4/6

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/- 07/12/2023 / TRUE COPY / /12/2023 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

DSS TO THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE PERIYAKULAM.

DO-THROUGH :

THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THENI DISTRICT.

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE PERIYAKULAM POLICE STATION, THENI DISTRICT.

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

5/6

+1 CC to M/s.S.MADHANKUMAR, Advocate ( SR-17557[I] dated 11/12/2023 )

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.22050 of 2023 Date :07/12/2023 PKP/JGB/SAR- /12.12.2023/ 6P/ 6C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 6/6