Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/3140/2024dismissed

Jeevanantham v. The Inspector Of Police

2024-03-18Honourable Mr Justice M.Dhandapani3 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Eighteenth day of March Two Thousand and Twenty Four PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.DHANDAPANI JEEVANANTHAM ... PETITIONER/SOLE ACCUSED Vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, PERIYAKULAM, THENI DISTRICT.

CRIME NO.5 OF 2024.

... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner :

MR.S.VIKRAM, Advocate For Respondent :

MR.S.MANIKANDAN, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervenor :

MR.R.RAMACHANDRAN, Advocate PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C.

PRAYER : FOR BAIL IN CRIME NO.5 OF 2024 ON THE FILE OF THE RESPONDENT POLICE.

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner / Sole accused, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 04.02.2024 for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 376(2)(n) and 506(i) IPC in Crime No.05 of 2024, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks bail.

1/3

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is a relative of the victim girl. The victim girl is studying second year B.Sc. at Jeyaraj Annabackiyam College, Periyakulam. The victim girl went to her relative's house and at that time, the petitioner had sexual intercourse with the victim girl forcibly and threatened her not to convey the same to others. Subsequently, the victim girl got pregnant and she approached the petitioner to marry her, for which, he refused. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner did not commit any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that the victim girl had an affair with the petitioner and she wants to marry him, so that, she made a false complaint before the respondent Police. Hence, he prays for bail.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent Police would submit that the petitioner had sexual intercourse with the victim girl forcibly. He would further submit that since the victim girl is five months pregnant, there is no chance to abort the child. He would further submit that after the birth of the child, then only, the DNA Test will be conducted. Hence, he vehemently opposed for grant of bail.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the intervener would submit that the petitioner promised to marry the victim girl and had sexual intercourse with her. But 2/3

he refused to marry her and he vehemently opposed for grant of bail.

6. It is seen that initially the petitioner by giving false promise to the victim girl had sexual intercourse with her and thereafter, refused to marry her.

7. Considering the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

8. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. sd/- 18/03/2024 / TRUE COPY / /03/2024 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S. I / II / III / IV ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TSG TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, PERIYAKULAM, THENI DISTRICT.

2 THE OFFICER INCHARGE, SUB JAIL, PERIYAKULAM, THENI DISTRICT. 3 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

ORDER

IN Date :18/03/2024 RS/GS/SAR-(21.03.2024) 3P 4C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 3/3