Allowed

R.Gurunathan v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC17 Jun 2020CRL OP(MD)/5963/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted bail to the petitioner, an accused charged with kidnapping and marrying a minor daughter under POCSO and child marriage acts, considering the matter as an affair of love between the parties.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on execution of bond with two sureties (one blood-related) on condition of daily reporting to police for two weeks and not tampering with evidence or absconding.

R.Gurunathan Vs the Inspector of Police — Child Custody and Guardianship | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

CRL OP(MD). No.5963 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Date : 17/06/2020

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

CRL OP(MD). No.5963 of 2020

¶7

R.Gurunathan ... Petitioner/Accused

¶8

¶9

State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Athanakottai, Pudukkottai District Crime.No. 46 of 2020. ... Respondent/Complainant

¶10

Manimegalai ... Intervener/De-facto complainant in CRL OP(MD) 3278 of 2020.

¶11

For Petitioner : M/s. B.Balamurugan,

¶12

Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi, Government Advocate (Criminal Side) For Intervener : Mr.R.M.S.Sethu Raman,

¶13

Advocate

¶14

PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.439 of Cr.P.C.

¶15

PRAYER :-

¶16

For Bail in Crime.No. 46 of 2020 on the file of the Respondent police

¶17

ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

¶18

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Counsel appearing for the intervener and the learned Government Advocate(Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent.

¶19

The petitioner is arrayed as Accused No.4. He was arrested and remanded to Judicial Custody on 13.05.2020, for the offences punishable under sections 366(A) IPC @ 109 r/w 366(A) IPC & Section 5(I), r/w 6 of POCSO Act 2012 and Section 9 of Child Marriage Act 2006, in Crime No.46 of 2020, on the file of the respondent police. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ He seeks bail.

¶20

¶21

CRL OP(MD). No.5963 of 2020

¶22

The case of the prosecution is that on 07.04.2020, the petitioner kidnapped the minor daughter of the defacto complainant and got married. Based on the complaint, a case in Crime No.46 of 2020, on the file of the respondent Police has been registered.

¶23

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner fell in love with the defacto complainant's daughter by name Pirasanna, who born on 25.04.2002, and is studying in B.Com., at Pudukkottai. Since the defacto complainant did not accept their love, the petitioner and the girl, got married on 27.04.2020. Subsequently, the petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 12.05.2020 onwards.

¶24

The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) appearing for the State, on instructions, would submit that in this case, the petitioner is arrayed as A4. The petitioner kidnapped the minor daughter of the defacto complainant and got married and the investigation is almost completed.

¶25

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that it is a matter of lover affairs, the petitioner got married the defacto complainant's minor daughter and the petitioner is in judicial custody from 12.05.2020, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, subject to certain conditions;

¶26

(i) Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with two sureties, of whom, one should be a blood related surety, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Pudukkottai ;

¶27

(a) 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;

¶28

(b) The petitioner shall report before the respondent Police daily at 10.00 a.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter, as and when required, for interrogation.

¶29

¶30

(d) The petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

¶31

(e) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/ Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by

¶32

¶33

CRL OP(MD). No.5963 of 2020

¶34

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]; and;

¶35

(f)if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229-A IPC.

¶36

sd/17/06/2020 / TRUE COPY / / /2020 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶37

TO 1. THE SESSIONS JUDGE, MAHILA COURT, PUDUKKOTTAI. 2. THE OFFICER IN CHARGE, DISTRICT SUB JAIL, PUDUKKOTTAI. 3. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ATHANAKOTTAI, PUDUKKOTTAI DISTRICT. 4. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.5963 of 2020 Date :17/06/2020 MPK SRS/ JC/ SAR-II/ 17.06.2020/ 3P/5C

¶38

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

¶39

R.Gurunathan v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Gurunathan v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Selvi Vs The Inspector of Police

Murugesan Vs The Sub Inspector of police

J.Jeyaseelan David Vs The Deputy Superintendent of Police

M.S.Shanker Vs The Sub Inspector of Police

Selvaraj Vs The Inspector of Police

Vicky @ Vigneswaran Vs The Inspector of Police