Kalaimaran G vs State

T.V.Thamilselvi, J

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 04.02.2024 for the alleged offence under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324, 506(2), 307 of I.P.C. r/w 25(1A) of Arms Act in Crime No.74 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

The case of prosecution is that on the date of occurrence, the petitioner along with other accused have unlawfully assembled in Anandha's lodge bar situated at Chinnasalem and abused the defacto complainant in filthy language, assaulted him and also threatened him with pistol, thereby attempted to murder him. Hence, the complaint was registered against the petitioner.

The learned counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that the entire allegation is false, vindictive, wanton and he is no way connected with the offence. He would submit that he has not at all committed any of offence as alleged by the respondent police and based upon a complaint given by the defacto complainant, has been falsely implicated in this case and he will abide by any condition that may be imposed by this court. He would submit that the investigation is almost completed and that the petitioner has been suffering incarceration for more than 56 days from 04.02.2024 and co-accused was released on bail. He would submit that his mother has undergone hip surgery and his sister is studying for NEET examination of Medicine, so he is the sole bread-winner of his family. Hence, he prayed to grant bail to the petitioner.

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for respondent would submit that in a Tasmac shop. they had a fight with each other. Totally, there are 6 accused and the petitioner is arrayed as A1. He would submit that he had also possessed Air-gun pistol, thereby he threatened the defacto complainant. He would submit that if he is released on bail, he would tamper the witnesses and hamper the investigation and the investigation is almost completed. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

Considering the above facts and circumstances and the fact reveals that the Air-gun was possessed by the petitioner, but no grievous injury caused to the defacto complainant and also the fact that co-accused was released on bail and the weapon was seized and the fact that the investigation is almost completed, and also considering the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner for more than 56 days, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:

Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on condition to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each, in which one surety must be a blood surety, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate-II Court, Kallakurichi, and on further conditions that:

(a) the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the learned 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 on every Monday, Wednesday and Sunday at 10.30 a.m. for period of three months;

(c) the petitioner shall not commit any offences of similar nature; m(d) the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

(e) the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

(f) on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial 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];

(g) if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.