Anticipatory bail sought for alleged assault of a defacto complainant with a wooden stick and abuse. The victim had been discharged from hospital and no prior case was pending against the petitioners. The court granted anticipatory bail with conditions including weekly police reporting, bonds with sureties, and restrictions on leaving India.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl. O.P. No.19373 of 2024
P. DHANABAL, J.
Crl. O.P. No.19373 of 2024
The petitioners apprehend arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 118(1) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 in Crime No. 491 of 2024, on the file of the respondent police seek anticipatory bail.
2.The case of the prosecution is that there was a quarrel between the petitioners and the defacto complainant and it is alleged that the petitioners assaulted the defacto complainant with wooden stick and also abused them in unparliamentary words. The victim has been injured and subsequently, she was hospitalized. Hence, the complaint.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Therefore, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
1 of 5
Crl. O.P. No.19373 of 2024
that there was a previous enmity between the petitioners and the de-facto complainant. He further submitted that petitioners attacked the defacto complainant and caused injuries and the injured has been discharged from the hospital. However, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
5.Considering the rival submissions on either side and considering the nature of offence and the victim has been discharged from the hospital, no previous case is pending against the petitioner and also considering all other aspects, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to the following conditions:
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, Cheyyar on condition that the petitioners shall each execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that:
2 of 5
Crl. O.P. No.19373 of 2024
[a] the petitioners shall report before the respondent Police on every Saturday at 10.30 a.m. for a period of for four weeks and thereafter as and when required for the interrogation;
[b] the petitioners shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
[c] the petitioners shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court;
[d] the petitioners shall not abscond 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 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].
[f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.2023.
28.08.2024
3 of 5
Crl. O.P. No.19373 of 2024
kv
To
4 of 5
Crl. O.P. No.19373 of 2024
P.DHANABAL, J.
kv
Crl. O.P. No.19373 of 2024
28.08.2024
5 of 5
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners apprehending arrest for offences under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 118(1) and 351(3) BNS.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
P.K.Shaji vs. State of KeralaRelied on
(2005)AIR SCW 5560 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioners in Crl. O.P. No.19373 of 2024
State (respondent police)
P. Dhanabal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
