M. MADHU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner/A5, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent Police for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 341, 342, 323, 324, 307, 302 IPC, seeks anticipatory bail.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant's father and her cousin brother were owning adjoining lands and there was a issue with regard to encroachment of boundaries. On 02.06.2020, at about 5 p.m, the defacto complainant's father questioned about the encroachment to the fourth accused in the presence of the other accused namely fourth accused sons and wife. In the course of conversation, A1 to A3 took knife, wooden log and attacked the defacto complainant's father, when the defacto complainant's brother intervened, he also attacked by the group. When the defacto complainant and her mother attempted to intervene, they were restrained by the petitioner and the fourth accused. On the intervention of the nearby people, the accused persons ran away from the scene. The defacto complainant's father died on the spot and her brother was taken to the hospital for treatment. Thereafter, the defacto complainant lodged a complainant at about 8 p.m before the respondent.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the defacto complainant and their group are the aggressors who attacked the accused group. Earlier there was a dispute with regard to the boundary of their land. A village panchayat was held, who advised the deceased not to interfere and cause disturbance to the accused property. Contrary to the same the deceased along with his son entered into the lands of the petitioner's family due to which fight arose and they exchanged blows. The petitioner's husband was severely injured. The case in counter came to be registered in Crime No.588 of 2020 for the offence under Section 294, 322 and 506(ii) IPC. The other accused in this case A1 to A3 are the sons of the petitioner and A4 is the husband of the petitioner. A1 to A4 arrested and let out on bail. Further, it is the case that the petitioner was present near the scene of occurrence and she along with A4 restrained the defacto complainant in an attempt to save her father. Admittedly, in this case the petitioner was not armed with any weapon, she had not participated in fight and no overt act attributed to the petitioner. The petitioner is a lady. Further, in this case investigation is almost completed and the custodial investigation of the petitioner is not necessary. Hence prayed for anticipatory bail to the petitioner.