BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the First day of November Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU CRL OP(MD) No.14081 of 2011 SIVA @ SIVAPERUMAL ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 Vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALLIDAIKURICHI POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT. IN CR.NO. 364 OF 2011 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. P.T.RAMESH RAJA Advocate For Respondent : MR.K.S.DURAI PANDI, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner is the first accused in crime No.364 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police for offence one under Section 366(A) IPC. The alleged occurrence was on 07.07.2011 and he was arrested on 09.09.2011. He has come forward with this petition seeking bail. 2.According to the case of the prosecution, the de-facto complainant is the mother of the victim girl, who is aged less than 18 years, her date of birth 20.05.1994. The petitioner is already a married man, but he has kidnapped the minor girl on 07.09.2011 at 11.30 p.m., when she was sleeping at her home. The girl was subsequently recovered and handed over to the custody of the parents. The petitioner was arrested on 09.09.2011, he seeks bail. 3.According to the petitioner, the petitioner had fallen in love with the victim girl. Out of love affair, she went on her own accord with the petitioner. Thereafter he surrendered before the police on 07.09.2011 along with the girl. Thus, according to the petitioner, he has not committed any offence and therefore, he is entitled for bail. 4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would however oppose the petition. According to him, the petitioner, who is a married man, ought not to have fallen in love with a minor girl. He would further submit that the petitioner has abducted the minor girl from the lawful guardianship of her mother and the victim girl is fatherless. He would also submit that a statement was recorded from the victim girl under Section 161 of Cr.P.C, where, she has stated that she was taken by force by the petitioner along with other accused. He further submitted that the investigation is pending and that the medical report is awaited. 5.The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that since the petitioner has been in jail for more than 50 days, on the ground of non-availability of medical report, bail has not been granted. He would further submit that if the petitioner is released on bail, he will abide by any condition that will impose by this Court. 6.I have considered the above submissions. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7.A perusal of the F.I.R would go to show that the victim girl is 18 years old. Though it is stated by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the date of birth of the victim girl is 20.05.1994, as of now, there is no material produced before this Court to substantiate such a contention. Assuming that the date of birth of the victim girl is 20.05.1994, she is at the verge of majority. Apart from that, a perusal of the record would go to show that the petitioner and the victim girl were in good terms for quite sometime. As pointed out the learned counsel for the petitioner, he has been in jail for more than 50 days, which is also a matter to be taken into account. It is also not yet explained to the Court as to why the medical report could not be obtained for such a longtime. It is also not the case of the prosecution that the accused would abscond, if bail is granted to him. It is also not explained to the Court as to why the case was not registered for offence punishable under Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriages Act, 2006, which is cognizable. Probably, since there was no marriage celebrated between the minor girl and the petitioner, such course cannot be adopted. During the investigation, if it comes to light that there was marriage celebrated for the minor, the respondent is at liberty to include such an offence under Section 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act also in the final report. 8.Having regard to the above facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly, the fact that the girl has been secured and she is in the custody of the mother and besides the fact that he has been in jail for more than 50 days, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, but with stringent conditions. 9. In the result, this petition is ordered and bail is granted to the petitioner on the following conditions: - (i) The Petitioner shall be enlarged on bail on his executing a 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 Judicial Magistrate, Ambasamudram, Tirunelveli District; and (ii) the Petitioner shall remind at Kovilpatti and report before the Kovilpatti Town Police Station, everyday at 10.30 a.m until further orders. sd/- 01/11/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, AMBASAMUDRAM, TIRUNELVELI. 2. -DO- THRO THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,TIRUNELVELI. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, PALAYAMKOTTAI. 4. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALLIDAIKURICHI POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT. 5. THE OFFICER IN CHARGE,KOVILPATTI TOWN POLICE STATION, KOVILPATTI. 6. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1. CC to M/S. V.ANGUSAMY, Advocate SR.No.37335 SR : 03.11.2011 : 2P/8C ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.14081 of 2011 Date :01/11/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/