BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Fourteenth day of September Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT THE HON`BLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALA CRL OP(MD) No.11982 of 2011 1. JEYABAL 2. DHANALAKSHMI ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED Nos.8 & 9 Vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE THATHAINGARPET POLICE STATION, TRICHY DISTRICT, CRIME NO.167/2011 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. M.KANNAN Advocate For Respondent : A.RAMAR, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner/A8 and A9 apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 366 (A) IPC in Crime No.167 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are arrayed as A8 and A9 and A8 is the uncle of A1 and A9 is the mother of the 1st accused, He would further submit that on the basis of the complaint given by the father of the defacto complainant stating that his daughter has been missing a case has been registered for the offence under Section 366(A) IPC. He would further submit that the daughter of the defacto complainant has eloped with A1 and these petitioners have no role in the commission of offence and since, they apprehend arrest, they have come forward with the application for enlarging them on anticipatory bail. 3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the alleged occurrence has been taken place on 20.07.2011 and the case has been registered on the basis of the complaint given by the father of the victim girl and the age of the victim girl is only 15 years. He would further submit that the respondent police suspected 10 persons and these petitioner are arrayed as A8 and A9 and the defacto complainant has already filed HCP.(MD).No.656 of 2011, wherein the investigating officer has filed the status report stating that three special team have been constituted for securing the girl and since the investigating is going on he prayed for the dismissal of the application. 4. I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on records. 5. Perusal of the records would show that the daughter of the defacto complaint who is aged about 15 years has been missing and a case has been registered on the basis of the complaint given by the defacto complainant and the respondent police suspected 10 persons and their names has been given and these petitioners are arrayed as A8 and A9. The defacto complainant has also filed HCP(MD).No.656 of 2011 which is also pending. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The investigating is going on and the victim girl is yet to be secured and hence, I am of the opinion that if the petitioners are enlarged on anticipatory bail, they will tamper the witnesses and abscond the jurisdiction and hence, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that there is no merits in this application and the same deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. sd/- 14/09/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE THATHAINGARPET POLICE STATION, TRICHY DISTRICT, 2. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI GH : 19.09.2011 : 2p/3c ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.11982 of 2011 Date :14/09/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/