R.Kousalya vs State

A.D.Jagadish Chandira, J

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 22.10.2022, for the offences punishable under Sections 365, 328, 379 of IPC, in Crime No.306 of 2022, on the file of the respondent police, seek bail.

The case of the prosecution as per the de-facto complainant/Ramesh is that on 13.10.2022, his mother Andal had gone to Vadapalani temple for offering prayer, at that time, an unknown person offered tea, which was mixed with a stupefying substance to her, on drinking the same, she fainted and taking advantage of that, the unknown person had taken away 11 sovereigns of jewels from her. On 15.10.2022, his mother was taken to the Stanley Hospital for treatment and she had narrated the incident on 17.10.2022. Based on her statement, the de-facto complainant has lodged a complaint. Hence, the case.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner, who is a Dubbing Artist and a member of the Dubbing Artist Association, is an innocent person and she has been implicated in this case, only based on suspicion. He would further submit that on 22.10.2022, when the petitioner was in her mother's house at Cuddalore, some unknown persons, had come in a tempo traveller, assaulted the petitioner and her mother and had taken away 45 sovereigns of jewels from them. He would also submit that later, the petitioner was taken to hospital for treatment and later she was implicated in this case. He would further submit that even as per the complaint given by the de-facto complainant, there was a delay of 4 days in giving the complaint and even as per the prosecution, 7 1/2 Sovereigns of jewels were recovered. He would also submit that the petitioner's counter complaint is also pending investigation and also the petitioner seeks investigation in respect of the complaint given by her. He would also state that the petitioner is in custody from 22.10.2022 and there is no bad antecedence against her. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the petitioner.

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that the petitioner as a stranger had given a tea mixed with stupefying substance to the mother of the de-facto complainant, due to which, she fainted and at that time, the petitioner had removed the 11 sovereigns jewels owned by her and escaped from the scene of occurrence and later, the petitioner was fixed in this case through the CCTV footage in that area. He would also submit that investigation is pending and about seven and half sovereigns were recovered from the petitioner and there is no previous case as against the petitioner. He would also submit that the petitioner has given a complaint after registration of the present case. Hence, he would oppose for grant of bail to the petitioner.

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 and the submissions made by the learned counsel and also considering the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on her executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, 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 report before the respondent Police, everyday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter, as and when required;

[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.