Yegappan v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Eighth day of December Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice V.M.VELUMANI CRL OP(MD) No.22418 of 2015 1 YEGAPPAN 2 VASANTHA ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 5 & 6 Vs THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, KEERANUR,PUDUKKOTTAI DISTRICT.
CRIME NO.7/2015 ...1st RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT 2 ARIYA NATCHI ...2nd RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S M.S.JEYAKARTHIK Advocate For Respondent : MR.K.ANBARASAN,Government Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners, who are arrayed as accused Nos.5 and 6, apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 294(b),498(A) and 494 r/w. 109 and 506(ii) of IPC and Section 4 of TNPWH Act in Crime No.7 of 2015 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the de facto complainant and the A1 were in love and A1 married the de facto complainant and lived together in a separate house. Subsequently, A1 left the de facto complainant in her sister's house. The de facto complainant conceived. When she contacted the A1, he did not attend the phone calls and hence, she went to the place of A1 and lodged a complaint. Subsequently, she came to know that A1 is going to marry the petitioners daughter / A4 and hence, she met the petitioners and informed that already she married A1. But, the petitioners abused her in filthy language and chased her away. Subsequently, on 17.11.2015, the petitioners got their daughter married to A1. Therefore, the de facto complainant has given the present complaint.
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioners are not aware about the love affair of the first accused with the de facto complainant. Further, the life of the petitioner's daughter only affected and the petitioners family members are the real victims in the alleged offence. The learned counsel further submitted that A2, father of A1 was already arrested and enlarged on bail by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Keeranur in Crl.M.P.No.7407 of 2015.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that the petitioners knowing fully about the marriage of the A1 and de facto complainant, they got their daughter's marriage to A1. Now, A1 is absconding and the investigation is pending. 5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the de facto complainant met the petitioners and informed about the marriage between the her and A1 and that the petitioners abused her in filthy language and chased her away and thereafter, only they got married her daughter to A1 and that the A1 is still absconding, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
6. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. sd/- 08/12/2015 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KEERANUR.
2 DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, PUDUKKOTTAI DISTRICT. 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION,KEERANUR, PUDUKKOTTAI DISTRICT.
4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECTUOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.22418 of 2015 Date :08/12/2015 CSL/GSV-AN/SAR-II/11.12.2015 2P/5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/