Annamalai @ Kambathan vs State

A.D.Jagadish Chandira, J

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 14.02.2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 354 A(1)(i), 506(i) of IPC r/w Section 92(b) of Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 in Crime No.59 of 2023, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks bail.

The case of the prosecution as per the defacto complainant / Poongavanam is that the accused came to the house of the defacto complainant and attempted to misbehave with her daughter who is visually impaired and on hearing the alarm of her daughter, she came into the house, on that time, the accused was standing there without any clothes and on seeing the defacto complainant, he ran away from the scene of occurrence. Hence the complaint.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner and the defacto complainant are neighbours and due to a land dispute, a false complaint has been given against him. He would further submit that the petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court and he is in judicial custody from 14.02.2023.

Hence, he prays for grant of bail to the petitioner.

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that the petitioner has attempted to misbehave with the daughter of the defacto complainant and when it was questioned by the defacto complainant, the petitioner gave a life threat to the defacto complainant and her daughter. Hence, he opposed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (crl.side) and perused the materials available on record.

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions made by either side and also considering the period of incarceration suffered by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) with two sureties, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Gingee and on further conditions that:

[a] 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 stay at Chennai and report before the Inspector of Police, North Beach Police Station daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders and it is made clear that the petitioner does not enter into the jurisdictional limit of the respondent until further orders;

[c] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

[d] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness 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 abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.