Pichandi vs State

T.V.Thamilselvi, J

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 17.03.2024 for the alleged offence under Section 25(1) (a) of Arms Act in Crime No.143 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

The case of prosecution is that on 17.03.2024, when the Forest Officer, defacto complainant carrying out routine rounds along with his team, the petitioner was unlawfully found in possession of country made gun and he is using the same for hunting animals without having any valid licence. 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, he 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 14 days from 17.03.2024 and no previous case pending against him. Hence, he prayed to grant bail to the petitioner.

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for respondent would submit that the petitioner is possessing a country made gun without any valid license and he is using the same for hunting animals. 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 according to the prosecution, the petitioner was possessed the country made gun without any valid license, but he possessed the said weapon for hunting animals that too not wild animals and no grievous injury caused to the defacto complainant and now 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 14 days from 17.03.2024, 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, Gudiyatham, 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 Wednesday at 10.30 a.m. for period of three months;

(c) the petitioner shall not commit any offences of similar nature;

(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 Crl.O.P.No.8060 of 2024 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.