Allowed

Palraj@ Balraj v. State by

Madras HC23 Jan 2023CRL OP/1200/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted anticipatory bail to petitioners accused of abusive language and obstructing service under IPC Sections 294(b), 353, and 506(i). Bail was released subject to conditions, including a bond, reporting to police every Wednesday for eight weeks, and refraining from tampering with evidence or absconding.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with a separate bond of Rs. 10,000, two sureties, reporting to police every Wednesday for eight weeks, and compliance with all stated conditions.

Palraj@ Balraj Vs State by — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.1200 of 2023

¶2

Crl.O.P.No.1200 of 2023

¶3

T.V.THAMILSELVI,J.

¶4

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 353 & 506(i) of IPC, in Crime No.378 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

¶5

The case of the prosecution is that due to the pending civil suit in O.S.No.211 of 2019 on the file of the Sub Court, Vaniyambadi, the Village Administrative Officer refused to issue adangal for the petitioners' agricultural lands, due to which, the petitioners along with others had a wordy quarrel with the Village Administrative Officer and abused him in a filthy language. Based on the complaint given by the VAO, the case in Crime No.378 of 2022 was registered against the petitioners. Hence the case.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He also

¶7

Page 1 of 5

¶8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶9

Crl.O.P.No.1200 of 2023

¶10

submitted that when the de-facto complainant refused to issue adangal for their agricultural land, there occurred a wordy quarrel and other than that the petitioners have nothing to do with the alleged offence, whereas, the de-facto complainant has lodged a false complaint, as if the petitioners have abused and harassed him. He also submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶11

Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that the petitioners have abused the de-facto complainant, who is the Village Administrative Officer, when he refused to issue adangal for their agricultural lands. Hence, he opposed to grant bail to the petitioners.

¶12

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent and perused the entire materials available on record.

¶13

Page 2 of 5

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

Crl.O.P.No.1200 of 2023

¶16

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions.

¶17

Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambur, Tirupathur, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a separate bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stands dismissed and on further condition that:

¶18

[a] the petitioner and 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;

¶19

Page 3 of 5

¶20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶21

Crl.O.P.No.1200 of 2023

¶22

[b] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police on every Wednesday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of eight weeks.

¶23

[c] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

¶24

[d] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

¶25

[e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners 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];

¶26

[f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.

¶27

23.01.2023

¶28

vkr

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

Page 4 of 5

¶31

Crl.O.P.No.1200 of 2023

¶32

T.V.THAMILSELVI,J.

¶33

vkr

¶34

Crl.O.P.No.1200 of 2023

¶35

23.01.2023

¶36

Page 5 of 5

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Palraj@ Balraj v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Palraj@ Balraj v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.Nandhakumar Vs the State of Tamilnadu

Angaleeswari Vs the Inspector of Police

Unni @ Madhusudhan Vs the State Rep.by

Bhuvaneshwari Vs State Rep by

Vadivunathan Vs the Inspector of Police

Sripradan Vs the State Rep by Its