Vinodh, M/32 Years, v. The State, Rep. By

Crl.O.P.No.14799 of 2015 R.SUBBIAH, J.

Apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent-Police, in respect of the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 420 & 406 IPC, in Crime No.3 of 2015, the petitioners have approached this Court seeking the relief of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that he is withdrawing the petitioner in respect of the 1st petitioner and to that effect, he has also made an endorsement. Hence, so far as the 1st petitioner is concerned, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn. 3.The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:- The marriage between the 1st petitioner and the daughter of the defacto-complainant was arranged and betrothal was conducted on 04.06.2015 at T.K.P.Kalayana Mandapam, Thiruvottiyur. Thereafter, the daughter of the defactocomplainant received photos in her smart-phone through watsup and in the said photos, the 1st petitioner appeared very close with another women viz., one Rosy. On enquiry, the defacto-complainant came to know that the 1st petitioner had already got married with the said Rosy and they are living in

a separate house. But, without disclosing the same, the petitioners arranged the marriage between the 1st petitioner and the daughter of the defacto-complainant. Hence, the present complaint has been filed by the defacto-complainant as against the petitioners/accused. 4.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and false case has been foisted against them. Thus, he sought for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 5.The learned counsel for the intervener opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners, stating that by concealing the first marriage, the petitioners have arranged for the marriage of the 1st petitioner with the daughter of the defacto-complainant.

6. I have heard the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) also. 7.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that anticipatory bail could be granted to the petitioners 2 & 3 alone, by imposing stringent conditions. Accordingly, the petitioners 2 & 3 viz., Loganathan & Suganthi are directed to be released on bail, in the event of their arrest or on their appearance before the concerned Court, 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 at Thiruvottiyur, and on further condition that they shall report before the respondent-police daily at 10.30 a.m. for a period of two weeks week and thereafter, as and when required. 8.The petitioner Nos.2 & 3 shall appear before the concerned Court within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, the anticipatory bail granted shall stand automatically cancelled.

31.07.2015 ssv

R.SUBBIAH, J.

ssv Crl.O.P.No.14799 of 2015 31.07.2015