Vignesh v. The Inspector Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.06.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA Vignesh ... Petitioner Vs.
The State represented by The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Avadi, Avadi City.
Crime No.14 of 2023 ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail pending investigation in Crime No.14 of 2023 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sasikumar For Respondent : Mr. C.E.Pratap Government Advocate (Crl. Side) 1/7
O R D E R
The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 13.05.2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 417 and 420 of IPC and Section 67 of Information Technology Act, 2000, in Crime No.14 of 2023 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.
2. The case of the prosecution as per the defacto complainant Keerthana is that she got married one Vikram in the year 2018 and since his character was bad, she had obtained mutual divorce from him. Thereafter, she got acquaintance with one Vignesh/the petitioner herein through Facebook and they fell in love with each other. While so, during March 2023, the petitioner on the promise of marrying the defacto complainant, had sexual intercourse with her. Further, during such relationship, he had also taken an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the defacto complainant and later, he had not returned the money and also refused to marry her. Hence, the complaint.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this 2/7
case. He further submitted that the defacto complainant is a divorcee and that there was a consensual relationship between them. He would further submit that during the said relationship, there were some financial transactions between them and so far, the petitioner has paid a sum of Rs.65,000/- to the defacto complainant through his account and he had also purchased jewels for her and the allegation that the petitioner has to repay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the defacto complainant is false. He would further reiterate that the relationship between the petitioner and the defacto complainant is consensual in natural and therefore, the offence of rape, cannot be made out as against the petitioner. He also submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the credit of the Crime Number and he has no objection in the amount being released in favour of the defacto complainant. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) vehemently opposed for grant of bail to the petitioner stating that the defacto complainant is divorcee and that the petitioner on the false promise of marrying the defacto complainant, had sexual intercourse with her and thereafter, refused to marry her. Further, the petitioner has also cheated the defacto complainant to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/-.
3/7
5. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the respondent police and perused the materials available on record.
6. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant of bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.
7. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) to the credit of Crime No.14 of 2023 and on such deposit and production of proof, 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, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Poonamallee, and on further conditions that:
[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;
4/7
[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police everyday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter, every Saturday at 10.30 a.m., until further orders.
[c] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;
[d] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial; [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 conditions have been imposed and the petitioners released on bail by 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]; [f] If the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.
8. Further, the learned Magistrate is directed to disburse the amount to the de-facto complainant, after issuance of notice and proper identification and acknowledgement;
08.06.2023 jas 5/7
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Poonamallee. 2.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Avadi, Avadi City.
3. The Central Prison, Puzhal.
4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
6/7
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA,J., jas 08.06.2023 7/7