BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Fifteenth day of September Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT THE HON`BLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALA CRL OP(MD) No.11589 of 2011 SUDHAGAR ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED Vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE THIRUNAGAR POLICE STATION CR.NO.290/2011 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. B.A.MURUGANANTHAM Advocate For Respondent : A.RAMAR, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner is arrayed as A1 and he was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 28.07.2011 for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 366(A) and 376 IPC in Crime No.290 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seeks bail. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the alleged occurrence has been taken place on 23.08.2011 and A2 is the brother of A1/the petitioner herein an he handed over the victim girl to her parents and the victim girl is studying 10th standard and because of the love affairs, the victim girl eloped with A1/the petitioner herein and since the investigation is considerably over, he prayed for the enlargement on bail to the petitioner. 3. Repudiating the same, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that age of the victim girl is only 15 years and the petitioner/A1 has compelled the girl to go to Dindigul in the Taxi and the occurrence has been taken place on 23.08.2011 and thereafter the victim girl was recovered and since the investigation is going on and they are awaiting for the medical report he prayed for the dismissal of the application. 4. I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on records. 5. The alleged occurrence has been taken place on 23.08.2011 and the complaint has been given on 27.08.2011. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner herein is arrayed as A1 and he abducted the girl and take her to Dindigul for marriage and since, she is a minor, the marriage has not been fruitful, the case has been registered. Even though the petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody from 28.07.2011 considering the age of the victim girl and the gravity of the offence I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner and the application deserves to be dismissed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6. Accordingly this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. sd/- 15/09/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE THIRUNAGAR POLICE STATION MADURAI 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRIOSN, MADURAI 3. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI GH : 20.09.2011 : 2P/4C ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.11589 of 2011 Date :15/09/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/