1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Saturday, the Twenty Ninth day of October Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr. Justice S.NAGAMUTHU CRL OP(MD) No.14104 of 2011 P.RAMESH ... PETITIONER / SOLE ACCUSED S.MURUGA PERUMAL ... INTERVENING PETITIONER Vs STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PALAYAMKOTTAI POLICE STATION, PALAYAMKOTTAI, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT. CRIME NO.1142 OF 2011 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. A.THIRUVADIKUMAR Advocate For Respondent : MR.K.S.DURAIPANDIAN, Addl. Public Prosecutor (Crl. Side) For Intervenor : MR.R.ANAND, Advocate 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 the alleged offence under Section 294(b) and 506(i) of I.P.C., in Crime No.1142 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police, the petitioner has come up with this petition seeking anticipatory bail. 2. According to the case of prosecution, the defacto complainant is the father-in-law of the petitioner. The petitioner's wife died long before and there is a case already pending between the parties. The daughter of the petitioner aged 7 years is now in the custody of the defacto complainant. It is the allegation that the petitioner made attempt to rescue his daughter from the custody of the de-facto complainant. There were also earlier proceedings pending in H.C.P., as well as G.W.O.P. When those proceedings have not ended in favour of the petitioner, it is the allegation that the petitioner has gone to the house of the de-facto complainant and tried to take the child. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would deny all the above allegations. As a matter of fact earlier complaint given by the de-facto complainant in Crime No.353 of 2022 was referred to as Mistake of Fact. After that, this false complaint has been given, it is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4. Reiterating the allegation made in the complaint, the learned counsel appearing for the intervenor, who has been permitted to intervene as per the order made in MP(MD)No.1 of 2011, would submit that the petitioner has got no right to come to the house of the de-facto complainant and forcibly take the child. 5. I have considered the above submissions. 6. After all the petitioner is the father of the child. It is quite natural, every father has got right to see the child. Even assuming that the petitioner has gone to the house of the de-facto complainant to see the child, it cannot be taken as serious, as projected by the de-facto complainant. 7. Having regard to the above said facts and all other attendant circumstances, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, but with conditions. 8. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, in the event of arrest or on his appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli on 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 respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the petitioner shall report before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation. The petitioner shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C., scrupulously. sd/- 29/10/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I, TIRUNELVELI. 2. THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE TIRUNELVELI. 3. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE PALAYAMKOTTAI POLICE STATION, PALAYAMKOTTAI, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT. 4. THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1. CC to M/S. A.THIRUVADIKUMAR Advocate SR. No.36993 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.14104 of 2011 Date :29/10/2011 RJ/31.10.11 2p/6c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/