BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Twelfth day of October Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice S.NAGAMUTHU CRL OP(MD) No.13613 of 2011 1 R.AZHAGARSAMY 2 SEENIYAMMAL 3 SELVARAJ 4 GOWSALYA ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.2 TO 5 Vs STATE REP.BY, THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE KADAMBOOR POLICE STATION, IN CR.NO.79 OF 2011, THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. S.VANCHINATHAN Advocate For Respondent : MR.K.S.DURAIPANDI, Addl.Public Prosecutor(Crl.Side) For Intervenor : M/S. S.RAMSAMY Advocate PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- Apprehending arrest, the petitioners, in Crime No.79 of 2011 on the file of the respondent Police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 & 495 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 6 of the Child Marriage Restraint Act, have come forward with this Petition seeking for anticipatory bail. 2.According to the case of the prosecution, the daughter of the petitioners 1 & 2, by name Sangeetha, was given in marriage to the defacto complainant on 21.03.2011. At that time, Sangeetha was a minor. After living with the defacto complainant for some time, she deserted the matrimonial home and disappeared. Therefore, the first petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition in H.C.P.(MD).No.303 of 2011 before this Court. Police secured the said girl and produced her before this Court. Before this Court, she has stated that she had married one Sathish and in view of the said statement, she was set at liberty. By that time, she had become major. Thereafter, the present complaint has been given alleging that by suppressing the earlier love affair, the marriage was solemnized between the defacto complainant and the said Sangeetha and because of which, the defacto complainant has incurred huge loss, as he spent more than 4 lakhs in respect of the marriage. With these allegations, the present case has been registered. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3.The defacto complainant is represented by Mr.Ramasamy, learned counsel. I have permitted him to intervene in the matter. He would reiterate the above and oppose grant of anticipatory bail. 4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would also oppose to grant anticipatory bail. 5.I have considered the above submissions. 6.A perusal of the First Information Report and averments submitted before this Court would go to show that the petitioners themselves are victims at the hands of their daughter Sangeetha. The girl, even after marriage, had eloped with some one else, forcing the petitioners to file HCP. Now, the victims are facing another prosecution at the hands of the defacto complainant. Prima facie, I am satisfied that there are no materials to deny the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. In such view of the matter, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 7. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail, in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Trichy, on each 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. The petitioners shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C scrupulously. Sd/- 12/10/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.III TRICHY 2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE KADAMBOOR POLICE STATION, THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT. 3 THE ADDL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI +1. CC to M/S. S.VANCHINATHAN Advocate SR.No.35319 ssk/14.10.2011 /5c -2p/- ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.13613 of 2011 Date :12/10/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/