Madras High CourtCRL OP/20554/2021withdrawn dismissed

R.Thangam v. State Rep By The

2021-11-25Honourable Mrs Justice T.V.Thamilselvi2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Twenty Fifth day of November Two Thousand Twenty One PRESENT The Hon`ble Mrs Justice T.V.THAMILSELVI CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.20554 of 2021 1 R.THANGAM [ PETITIONERS / ACCUSED ] 2 R.SANTHIYA 3 S.SATHYA 4 R.NETHAJI 5 V.NADARAJAN 6 C.SIDHAIYAN 7 V.RAJA@KANDHASAMY Vs STATE REP BY THE [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, OMALUR, SALEM DISTRICT.

(CRIME NO. 20/2021) For Petitioner : M/S V.RAMANAREDDY Advocate For Respondent : MR.N.S.SUGANTHAN, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) 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 Sections 9 and 10 of the protection of Child Marriage Act, 2006 and Sections 5(l), 5(j)(ii),6, 16 and 17 of the protection of Child from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 in Cr.No.20 of 2021, seek anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant lodged a complaint before the respondent police and stated that the petitioner's family members have performed the marriage between the petitioner/A1 and defacto complainant aged about 16 years and thereafter the petitioner had sexual intercourse, she became pregnant and went to her mother's house and delivered one male child. In the mean time, the petitioner/A1 planned to perform another marriage Hence, the complaint.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that due to matrimonial misunderstanding between the petitioner and defacto complainant, she lodged a false complaint as against the petitioners and they have been falsely implicated in this case. Hence he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submits that the petitioner had got married with another girl and the copy of photographs has been produced. He further submits there is serious allegation levelled against the petitioner and the investigation is still pending. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), this court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. -sd/- 25/11/2021 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 INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, OMALUR, SALEM DISTRICT.

2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

CC to M/S V.RAMANAREDDY Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.20554/2021 Date :25/11/2021 CSK 06/12/2021 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/