The court's decision was based on the principle that anticipatory bail can be granted in cases where the facts and circumstances of the case warrant it, even if the accused is charged with serious offences.

1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

Dated: 11/01/2022

PRESENT

The Hon'ble Mr.Justice G.ILANGOVAN

Crl.OP(MD)Nos.19062 of 2021

1. S.Mohammed Kasim

2. M.Bulkies

3. Syed Ali

... Petitioners/Accused

(Rank Not Known)

Vs.

State rep. By

The Inspector of Police,

All Women Police Station,

Palayamkottai,

Tirunelveli-625 002.

(Crime No.15 of 2021)

... Respondent/Complainant

For Petitioners : M/s.Sankar.M, Advocate

For Respondent : M/s.SS.Madhavan

Government Advocate(Crl. side)

PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C

PRAYER :-

For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.15 of 2021 on the file of

the Respondent Police.

ORDER : The Court made the following order:-

The petitioners, apprehending arrest at the hands of the

respondent police for the alleged offences under sections 9 of Child

Marriage Restraint Act, 1929 and section 5(1) and (j)(ii) and

section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,

2012, in Crime No.15 of 2021, seek anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution in that on 16/09/2020, the

marriage was arranged between A1 and the victim namely Jasmine. In

pursuance of the above said arrangement, the marriage was also

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

2

performed. The victim girl delivered a male child, on 09/06/2021 in

the Government Hospital, Tirunelveli. On the date of the alleged

marriage, the victim was a minor. So based on the complaint given

by the Social Welfare Officer, the above said case has been

registered.

3.Seeking anticipatory bail, this petition is filed by the

petitioners on the ground that the marriage between A1 namely Syed

Ali and the victim girl was performed without knowing the

consequence. The victim was aged about 16 years. The petitioners 1

and 2 are the parents of A1 and the 3^rd petitioner is the mother of

victim. Except stating that without knowing the consequence of the

said marriage, they performed the same, no other ground has been

stated.

4.The victim girl during the course of her evidence before the

concerned Judicial Magistrate has stated that A1 is her maternal

uncle and she married him out of her own wish and will. After the

birth of the child, this case has been registered. Now the child is

also 6 months old. From the statement of the victim, the the

marriage was performed with the consent of the all the persons and

even the victim has also given consent for the same. NO doubt the

petitioners have to undergo trial. But considering the facts and

circumstances that it is an old issue and now the child is also aged

about 6 months and the marriage was performed 1-1/2 years back, the

question of custodial interrogation may not be required, since it is

an admitted fact.

5.Considering the above facts and circumstances of this 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 Sessions Judge, Special Court for POSCO Act Cases,

Tirunelvelli and on each of them 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

the petitioners shall appear before the respondent police daily at

10.00 a.m. until further orders. The petitioners shall comply with

the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously. 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 will stand

dismissed.

Sd/-

11/01/2022

/ TRUE COPY