K. Ranjith, S/O.Kannusamy, v. The Inspector Of Police,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Twenty Seventh day of July Two Thousand Seventeen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice A.M.BASHEER AHAMED CRL OP(MD) No.8896 of 2017 K. RANJITH ... PETITIONER A-1 Vs 1 THE STATE REP.BY, THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMAN POLICE STATION, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT.

CR.NO.5 OF 2017 ... 1st RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT R2 LAKSHMI W/O.RANJITH, ALAGANPATTI, MELAPOONGUDI POST, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT ...2nd RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT (R2 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT MADE IN CRL MP(MD).6497/17 IN CRL OP(MD). 8896/17 DATED.21.07.2017 BY AMBAJ) For Petitioner : M/S.B.SANTHANAM RAJESHKUMAR Advocate For Respondent : MR.A.RAMAR Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner / Accused No.1, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 417, 376 and 506(i) of IPC in Crime No.5 of 2017 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner had sexual intercourse with the de facto complainant one Lakshmi, who is the second respondent herein, on promising to marry her and therefore, she was also consented for the sexual intercourse on several times and she became pregnant and thereafter, the de facto complainant urged the petitioner to marry her, but, he has not turned out and hence, the victim has given a complaint against the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the petitioner got married with the de facto complainant on 17.05.2017 and they started their family life. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent on instructions submitted that there are totally two accused in this case and the petitioner herein is arrayed as A1. He would further state that A2 was arrested and released on bail by the Sessions Court, Sivagangai and the investigation is still pending.

5. Today, the petitioner appears in person along with his father and the second respondent / de facto complainant also appears in person along with her father. The parties are identified by the respondent Police in open Court itself. The de facto complainant also says that she is living with the petitioner herein after marriage and she got female child to the petitioner herein. 6.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sivagangai and on his 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 Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the petitioner shall appear before the respondent police once in a week i.e on every Sunday at 10.30 am until further orders. The petitioner shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Scrupulously.

7.The petitioner 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/- 27/07/2017 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.II, SIVAGANGAI. 2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT. 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, SIVAGANGAI, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT 4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

+1. CC to M/S.B.SANTHANAM RAJESHKUMAR Advocate SR.No.27462 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.8896 of 2017 Date :27/07/2017 MKV-CM-MSA-SAR 3/1.8.2017/2P-6C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/