BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Twenty Fourth day of January Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice C.T.SELVAM CRL OP(MD) No.844 of 2011 C.NAGARAJAN ... PETITIONER / SOLE ACCUSED Vs THE STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE(CRIME) FORT POLICE STATION, TRICHY. CR.NO.2507 OF 2010. ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. M.VEILKANI RAJU Advocate Fro Intervenor : Mr.R.Senthilkumar, Advocate For Respondent : Mr.P.Rajendran, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for alleged offences punishable under Sections 420, 465 and 468 of IPC on the file of the respondent police and hence, seeks anticipatory bail. 2. Heard Mr.M.Veilkani Raju, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.P.Rajendran, learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondent State and also Mr.R.Senthil Kumar, learned counsel for the intervenor. 3.The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence and he prays for anticipatory bail. 4. The learned Counsel for the intervenor would strenously object grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and would submit that the petitioner and one Aiswarya, who is a Canadian Citizen, got married by producing false documents before the District Sub Registrar, Tiruchirappalli as if she was an Indian citizen and that the fact of conduct of marriage came to be known only after the filing of an initial complaint informing that the girl was missing. The girl yet is to be traced. The learned Counsel would also state that a petition for transfer of investigation stands filed before this Court in Crl.OP NO. 275 of 2011 relating to the missing of the girl. 5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would oppose grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ taking into consideration of the submissions of the learned counsel for the intervenor, that the petitioner and the girl who had gone missing, are available, but, the respondent police are not taking requisite action despite being informed and that as the girl has overstayed, the immigration officials are taking steps to repatriate her to Canada, this Court is inclined to grant interim anticipatory bail for a period of two weeks. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of his arrest or on his appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned and each of them executing a bond for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) each with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate NO.I, Trichy, and on further condition that the petitioner shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10:30 a.m. for a period of two weeks. sd/- 24/01/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I, TRICHY 2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, TRICHY 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE(CRIME), FORT POLICE STATION, TRICHY. 4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI +1. CC to M/S. M.VEILKANI RAJU Advocate SR.No.2660 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.844 of 2011 Date :24/01/2011 PAM 27.01.2011/6C/2P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/