BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Fourteenth day of December Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH CRL OP(MD) No.16314 of 2011 1 GANESAN @ GANESAMOORTHY 2 ELAMATHI 3 DASS ... PETITIONERS / ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3 Vs STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KULASEKARAPATTINAM POLICE STATION, TUTICORIN DISTRICT. (CR.NO.333/2011) ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. S.RAGAVENTHRE Advocate For Respondent : MR.K.S.DURAIPANDIAN, Addl. Public Prosecutor (Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners are arrayed as A1 to A3 and they prayed for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C., for the alleged offences punishable under Section 366 I.P.C., in Crime No.333 of 2011, on the file of the respondent Police. 2. Heard Mr.S.Ragaventhre, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.K.S.Duraipandian, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 3. According to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the first petitioner is ranked as first accused and others are his friends who are ranked as A2 and A3. She would further submit in her argument that the first petitioner and the victim girl loved each other and they married on 25.11.2011 and they are living as husband and wife. She would further submit that the date of birth of the victim girl is 22.07.1993 and she is major and she is entitled to give consent for her marriage and hence, there is no question of offence said to have been committed by the first petitioner under Section 366 IPC and she would further submit in her arguments that the petitioners are innocent and they have not committed any offences and prays for anticipatory bail in favour of the petitioners. 4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit in his argument that the marriage certificate produced by the petitioners would go to show that the first petitioner and the victim girl have got married and the date of birth is 22.07.1993. He would also submit that in the event of granting Anticipatory bail necessary stringent conditions may be imposed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the date of birth of the victim girl is 22.07.1993 and she was major on the date of alleged offence and the certificate produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner would go to show that she is aged more than 18 years and she has got married with the first petitioner herein and they are living as husband and wife, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to be released on bail, in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned on each of them 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, Thiruchendur and on further condition that the petitioners shall appear before the respondent Police as and when required for interrogation. The petitioners shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C., scrupulously. 6. The petitioners shall appear before the Magistrate concerned within a period of 15 days, failing which, the anticipatory bail granted shall stand automatically cancelled. sd/- 14/12/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THIRUCHENDUR. 2. THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE TUTICORIN. 3. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KULASEKARAPATTINAM POLICE STATION, TUTICORIN DISTRICT. 4. THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1. CC to M/S. S.RAGAVENTHRE Advocate SR.No.43674 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.16314 of 2011 Date :14/12/2011 RJ/16.12.11 2p/6c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/