Kalpana v. State Rep by
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court granted anticipatory bail to petitioners accused of attacking a woman and causing injuries under various IPC sections, subject to strict conditions including daily reporting and execution of a bond.
What did the court decide?
Petitioners ordered to be released on bail if arrested, within 15 days, subject to conditions including a bond of Rs.10,000 with sureties, daily reporting for 30 days, and restrictions on absconding o
What the court decided
Crl.OP.No.29179 of 2023
Crl.O.P.No.29179 of 2023
P.DHANABAL, J.
The petitioners who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 354, 324, 352, 506(ii) of IPC in Crime No.76 of 2023, seek anticipatory bail.
- The case of the prosecution is that A1's workers and defacto complainant's husband had wordy quarren because the A1's workers were drinking and making noise. After which the petitioners had attacked the defacto complainant and abused her with filthy language. Hence, the complaint.
- The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the petitioners are innocent and due to previous enmity a false case has been foisted against them. Hence he seeks anticipatory bail.
- The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that
the petitioners attacked the defacto complainant and caused injuries. He would further submit that the injured has been discharged from the hospital. However, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
Page 1 of 4
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners facing charges under IPC Sections 294(b), 354, 324, 352, and 506(ii).
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
P.DHANABAL
- respondent
STATE OF TAMIL NADU
Coram
P.DHANABAL
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court