BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Twenty Sixth day of July Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice R.MALA CRL OP(MD) No.9195 of 2011 1. GOPAL 2. DAVID 3. CHARLES : PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.2,4 &6 Vs. THE STATE REP.BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, AMBATHURAI POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL DISTRICT. CRIME NO.252 OF 2011 : RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. P. MUTHUSAMY Advocate For Respondent : Mr. A.RAMAR Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners are arrayed as A2, A4 and A6 and they were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 30.06.2011 for the alleged offence punishable under Section 366(A) I.P.C., in Crime No.252 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek bail. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the defacto complainant's daughter viz., Salini Devi, who is aged about 17 years, was kidnapped by one Jeyasingh/A1, who is the son of the second petitioner and on that basis the petitioners were arrested. He would further submit that the second petitioner's son/A1 loved with the victim girl and eloped on 29.06.2011 and the petitioners were not aware the whereabouts of the victim girl as well as A1 and hence, he prays for enlargement on bail. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the victim girl is a minor and she is yet to be secured and the investigation is going on and hence, he prays for dismissal of this application. 4. Considering the rival submissions made by both sides and also considering the nature of the offence, the occurrence has been taken place on 29.06.2011 and a case has been registered on 30.06.2011 and the investigation is going on and the victim is yet to be secured 5. In such circumstances, I do not find any merits in this application. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners filed a typed set of papers along with this petition, which shows that the second petitioner has suffering from heart ailment. Therefore, the Superintendent of Central Prison, Madurai is directed to give medical care to the second petitioner. 6. With the above observation, this criminal original petition is disposed of. Sd/- 26/07/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, MADURAI. 2. THE OFFICER IN-CHARGE, SUB JAIL, DINDIGUL. 3. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, AMBATHURAI POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL DISTRICT. ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.9195 of 2011 Date :26/07/2011 NSV/2.8.11/2P/5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/