1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Thirty First day of October Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice S. TAMILVANAN CRL OP(MD) No.13174 of 2011 1.VIJAYABASKAR 2.ARUN 3.L. GIRUBAKARAN 4.JOTHI @ ARASU ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1, 5 TO 7 Vs STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION, THANJAVUR DISTRICT, CRIME NO.349/2011 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. K.M.SUBRAMANIAM Advocate For Respondent : MR. K.V.RAJARAJAN, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners, who are arrayed as A1 and A5 to A7 and facing charges under Section 366 IPC @ 341, 342, 323, 324, 506(ii) and 366 of IPC in crime No.349 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police, apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police, have come forward with the application under Section 438 Cr.P.C., seeking anticipatory bail. 2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/ A1 and A5 to A7 as well as the learned Government Advocate (criminal side) appearing for the respondent. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that there was love affair between the first petitioner/A1 and the alleged victim girl, namely, Aarthi. The first petitioner/A1 is an Engineering graduate and the alleged victim girl was a medical student and the marriage had taken place between the first petitioner/A1 and the said Aarthi before the Sub-Registrar of Cuddalore on 07.10.2010. However, the case was registered against the petitioners under Sections 366 IPC @ 341, 342, 323, 324, 506 (ii) and 366 IPC. Subsequently, suit was also filed in O.S.No.370 of 2011 before the Subordinate Court, Tanjore seeking declaration that the said marriage is null and void. Only as a counter blast the complaint was given and the same was registered against the first petitioner/A-1, his sister, father and other close relatives, though they have nothing to do with the alleged offence. 4.Learned Government Advocate (crl. side) has not disputed that there is no bad antecedent against the petitioners. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find it just and reasonable to grant anticipatory bail in favour of the petitioners/A1 and A5 to A7 on reasonable conditions. Accordingly, the petitioners/ A1 and A5 to A7 ordered to be released on bail in the event of their arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Villupuram, and on each of them executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the petitioners/A1 and A5 to A7 shall appear before the concerned Magistrate, daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of two weeks thereafter. The petitioners/ A1 and A5 to A7 shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously. 6. The petitioners/ A1 and A5 to A7 shall appear before the concerned Magistrate within a period of 15 days from the date on which the order copy is made ready failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail stands dismissed. sd/- 31/10/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, VILLUPURAM 2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, VILLUPURAM 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION, THANJAVUR DISTRICT 4 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1. CC to M/S. K.M.SUBRAMANIAM Advocate SR.No.37244 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.13174 of 2011 Date :31/10/2011 TR :04.11.2011: 2P/6C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/