Three petitioners facing charges under Sections 294(b), 506(1) and 379 IPC after allegedly leaving the de facto complainant's home with gold and cash sought anticipatory bail. The court granted it, citing their family relationship and absence of prior cases, imposing conditions including weekly police reporting and bond with two sureties.
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.OP.No.4679 of 2024
Crl.OP.No.4679 of 2024
P. DHANABAL, J.
The petitioners / accused, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 506(1), 379 of IPC, in Crime No.80 of 2024, on the file of the first respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.
1/6
Crl.OP.No.4679 of 2024
anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
The learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant also reiterated the arguments of the Government Advocate.
2/6
Crl.OP.No.4679 of 2024
petitioners are ordered to be released on anticipatory bail in the event of their 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 – I, Erode, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only), with two sureties for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that:
[a] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police on every
Saturday at 10.30 a.m. until further orders
[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 petitioner 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 3/6
Crl.OP.No.4679 of 2024
petitioner 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.
[g] the conditions already imposed by this Court remain intact until further orders.
22.08.2024
bkn
4/6
Crl.OP.No.4679 of 2024
To
5/6
Crl.OP.No.4679 of 2024
P.DHANABAL, J.
bkn
CRL OP.No.4679 of 2024
22.08.2024
6/6
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners apprehending arrest for offences under Sections 294(b), 506(1) and 379 IPC in Crime No.80 of 2024.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
P.K.Shaji vs. State of KeralaApplied¶7
(2005)AIR SCW 5560 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Petitioners / Accused (three)
Respondent Police (Erode Taluk Police Station, Rangampalayam)
P. Dhanabal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
