RAMU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Section 366 of IPC, in Crime No. 89 of 2012, on the file of the respondent police and hence, seeks anticipatory bail. Heard Mr. R. Gandhi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. C. Ramesh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.

(2.) The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that one Vimaladevi had given a complaint and the case has been registered in Crime No. 89 of 2012 against the accused Suganya. It is alleged in the complaint that the defacto complainant is the wife of one Suresh @ Mayakrishnan. Her husband had been taken by the accused Suganya who is also married lady, with the idea of getting money from her husband and the case has been registered under Section 366 IPC. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submits that two Habeas Corpus Petitions have been filed in H.C.P.(MD).Nos. 64 & 91 of 2012 before this Hon'ble Court, i.e., H.C.P.(MD)No. 91 of 2012 is filed by one Dinesh, who is the husband of the said Suganya and H.C.P.(MD)No. 64 of 2012 is filed by one Vimaladevi, who is wife of Suresh @ Mayakrishnan. While recording the statement of the defacto complainant, it was revealed that the father and brother of Suganya have assisted her for abducting the defacto complainant's husband. The brother of the first accused was already arrested and remanded to judicial custody.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the police party unnecessarily arrested the son of this petitioner and either the petitioner or his son have no knowledge about the defacto complainant's husband being taken by the petitioner's daughter. It appears that only the defacto complainant's husband had eloped with the daughter of the petitioner and the petitioner is not aware of the whereabouts of both his daughter as well as the defacto complainant's husband. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that it is a clear abuse of process of law and the ingredients of Section 366 IPC are not made out.