BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT (Criminal Jurisdiction) Tuesday, the Eleventh day of October Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice S.NAGAMUTHU CRL OP(MD)No.9848 of 2011 SIVAKUMAR :PETITIONER / 1st ACCUSED -Vs- THE STATE REP. BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, UTHAPPANAICKANOOR POLICE STATION, USILAMPATTI TALUK, MADURAI DISTRICT.CR.NO.144/10 :RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. R.SELVARAJ Advocate For Respondent : MR.K.S.DURAIPANDI, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 Cr.P.C. ORDER:The Court Made the following order:- Apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for offences under Sections 366(A) and 109 IPC, in Crime No.144 of 2010 on the file of the respondent police, the petitioner has come up with this petition seeking anticipatory bail. 2.It is submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the petitioner had kidnapped the victim girl, who is hardly 16 years of age and during investigation, it has come to light that the petitioner has married her also. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has married the de-facto complainant and she has also given birth to a child. 4.I have considered the above submissions. 5.The very statement that the petitioner has married the de-facto complainant, who is hardly 16 years old, would clearly establish that the petitioner has committed a serious offence punishable under Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriages Act 2006, apart from 366(A) and Section 109 IPC. As per section 3 of the said Act, the marriage has been declared as void also. The said Act has been brought into force by the Parliament only after knowing the ill effect of the child marriages in this Country. There are also study reports, which say that the child marriages affect not only the psychology of the children but also the physiological conditions of the children involving in child marriages and the children born to them. 6.In such view of the matter, though it is alleged that the petitioner has married the victum, since the offences are very serious in nature, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. sd/- 11/10/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO: 1.The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 2.The Sub Inspector of Police, Uthappanaickanoor Police Station, Usilampatti Taluk, Madurai District. RP/14.10.2011/1P/3C. ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.9848 of 2011 Date :11/10/2011. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/