Chinnarasu @ Chinnadurai v. The State Rep By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Sixteenth day of June Two Thousand Twenty Two PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.13770 of 2022 1 CHINNARASU @ CHINNADURAI [ PETITIONERS/ACCUSED ] 2 K.GURUSAMY 3 K.POONGODI 4 MADHU 5 SELVI Vs STATE REP.BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, ERODE DISTRICT.

CRIME NO.17 OF 2022 For Petitioner : M/S.P.KANNANKUMAR, Advocate For Respondent : M/S.A.DAMODARAN, Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners, who apprehend arrest for the alleged offence under Section 5, 10 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 and 5 (1)(n) read with 6, 17 of POCSO Act, 2012 in Crime No.17 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners 2 to 5 are family members of the 1st petitioner and the victim girl, alleged to have arranged marriage between 1st petitioner/A1 and the victim girl, who aged about 17 years old and they both lived together. The Child Welfare Officer recovered the victim girl and admitted her in the Government hospital and lodged a complaint before the respondent police and the case was registered.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and they have been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent submitted that the petitioners 2 to 5 are parents of the 1st petitioner/A1 and the victim girl, who performed child marriage. Therefore, the Child Welfare Officer lodged a complaint against them. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners do not require in this case. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners subject to the following conditions:-

6. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Erode, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each, 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, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that:

[a] the petitioners and the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity.

[b] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. for a period of two weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation.

[c] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

[d] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

[e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560].

[f] If the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.

-sd/- 16/06/2022 This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned TRUE COPY Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104.

TO 1 THE SESSIONS JUDGE, FAST TRACK MAHILA COURT, ERODE.

2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, ERODE DISTRICT.

3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

+1 CC to M/S.P.KANNANKUMAR Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.NO. 9401 CRL OP.13770/2022 Date :16/06/2022 RW-20/06/2022