SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 92808

MADRAS HIGH COURT
VIJAYARAGAVAN – Appellant
Versus
THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE – Respondent
CRL OP/32391/2022



An accused is entitled to anticipatory bail if the court is satisfied that the accused is not likely to commit any offence while on bail and will not abscond.

Headnote:

ANTICIPATORY BAIL - SECTION 447, 506(I) OF IPC - TRESPASSING AND THREATENING - ANTICIPATORY BAIL GRANTED SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Section 447, 506(i) of IPC for trespassing into the property and threatening the defacto complainant due to a dispute about a common pathway.

Finding of the Court:

The court, after considering the facts and circumstances, is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Issues: Whether the petitioner should be granted anticipatory bail for the alleged offences under Section 447, 506(i) of IPC.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail subject to certain conditions, including executing a bond, reporting to the police regularly, not tampering with evidence or witnesses, and not absconding.

Final Decision: The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail upon executing a bond for Rs. 10,000/- each, with two sureties each for a like sum, and subject to certain conditions.

1

Crl.O.P.No.32391 of 2022

Crl.O.P.No.32391 of 2022

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under

Section 447, 506(i) of IPC in Cr.No.784 of 2022 on the file of the respondent

police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that regarding a dispute about common

pathway, the defacto complainant filed Civil Suit. Due to which the petitioner

and his brother, threatened the defacto complainant witih dire consequences.

Hence, the case.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that

the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.

The petitioner has no specific vengence with the defacto complainant.

Hence, the learned counsel prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) would submit that the

petitioner has trespassed into the property and he threatened the defacto

1/4

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

2

Crl.O.P.No.32391 of 2022

complainant. Hence, he opposed to grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances, the submission of the

learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) this Court is inclined to grant

anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6.Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the

event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the

date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate

No.I, Kanchipuram, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a 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 and on further condition that:

(a)the petitioner and the sureties shall affix their photographs and left

thumb impression in the surety bond and the Court concerned 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 every

Wednesday at 10.30 a.m. for a period of eight weeks and thereafter, as

2/4

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

3

Crl.O.P.No.32391 of 2022

and when required for interrogation;

(c)the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during

investigation or trial;

(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 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]; and;

(f)if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered

under Section 229-A IPC.

03.01.2023

vsn

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

vsn

3/4

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

4

Crl.O.P.No.32391 of 2022

Crl.O.P.No.32391 of 2022

03.01.2023

4/4

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top