AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner, apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent Police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 115(2) and 118(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, in Crime No.117 of 2026 on the file of the respondent Police, has approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail.
The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is the husband of the defacto complainant. Due to a family dispute, a wordy quarrel that arose between them, the petitioner allegedly abused her in filthy language, assaulted the defacto complainant’s father, and caused injuries, and also threatened her with dire consequences. Hence, the complaint.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent person, has not involved in any offence as alleged by the prosecution, and a false case has been foisted against him. He also submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court, and therefore, prayed for the grant of anticipatory bail.
The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the case of the prosecution and, on instructions, submitted that on 13.08.2026, when the de facto complainant’s father questioned the petitioner regarding his habitual alcohol consumption, a confrontation ensued. The petitioner allegedly abused the de facto complainant in filthy language, assaulted her father, and inflicted physical injuries upon him. He further submitted that the injured person has now been discharged from the hospital, and the investigation is still underway. Hence, he opposed the grant of anticipatory bail.
I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and also perused the records available.
Considering the nature of the allegations and taking into account the relationship between the parties, and also the fact that the injured person has been discharged from the hospital, this Court is of the considered view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to certain conditions.
Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate Court No.2, Tirupattur, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only), with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, and on further conditions:
If the petitioner fails to surrender before the concerned Magistrate within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, this order shall stand automatically cancelled;
The sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the application for suretyship (Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019]'. The learned Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one of identify proofs to ensure their identity;
The petitioner shall report before the respondent Police daily at 10:30 A.M., for a period of 15 days and thereafter as and when required for interrogation;
On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate actions against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner is released on anticipatory bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji v. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560];
If the petitioner thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act.