G.Shanmugapriay v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Twenty Second day of June Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice K.KALYANASUNDARAM CRL OP(MD) No.9606 of 2015 1 G.SHANMUGAPRIAY 2 S.GHANASEKAR ... PETITIONER(S) / ACCUSED 1 & 3 Vs THE STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE CHINNALAPATTI POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL DISTRICT. CR. NO.250/2015. ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.A.CHANDRA KUMAR Advocate For Respondent : M/S.K.V.RAJARAJAN Govt. 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 A-1 and A-3 apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 147, 120(b), 364 I.P.C @ 294(b), 362, 363, 364(b), 506(i) of I.P.C r/w 109 I.P.C, in Crime No. 250 of 2015, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.
2.According to the defacto complainant, her daughter was given marriage to the third accused and they have one son and after the demise of her daughter in the year 2012, the child was taken care of by the defacto complainant. Whileso, his son-in-law had married the first accused and on 04.04.2015, the accused abducted the minor child aged about 5 years.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the second petitioner is working as a Scientist in Indian Space Research Centre in Trivandram and he married the first accused in the year 2014 and the child is taken care of by the second petitioner/A-3. He further submitted that as per direction of this Court, the child was produced before the Mediation and Conciliation centre, attached to this Bench, on 09.06.2015 and the boy was not inclined to go with the defacto complainant. It is further submitted that the second petitioner has admitted his son at Kendriya Vidyalaya in Trivandrum. It is further submitted that the second accused, who is the brother of the first accused and brother-in-law of the third accused was already arrested and released on bail. 4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) admitted that the child was produced before the Mediation Centre and he is in custody of the second petitioner.
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, with certain conditions.
6. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, No.III, Dindigul on each executing a separate 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 Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the petitioners shall appear before the respondent police as and when required. The petitioners shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Scrupulously.
7. The petitioners shall appear before the concerned Magistrate within a period of 15 days from the date on which the order copy made ready, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail stands dismissed. sd/- 22/06/2015 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, NO.III, DINDIGUL. 2 DO THRO THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,DINDIGUL. 3 THE ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE CHINNALAPATTI POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL DISTRICT. 5 THE CHIEF CO-ORDINATOR MEDIATION AND CONCILIATION CENTRE, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT MADURAI +1. CC to M/S.A.CHANDRA KUMAR Advocate SR.No. 32922. TS/25.06.2015/2P -7C
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.9606 of 2015 Date :22/06/2015 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/