Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/12198/2020dismissed

Vignesh v. The Inspector Of Police

2020-11-02Honourable Mr Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 02/11/2020 PRESENT The Hon'ble Mr.Justice G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN CRL OP(MD). No.12198 of 2020 Vignesh ... Petitioner/Accused No.1 Vs The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Tenkasi, Tenkasi District.

Cr No.6 of 2020. ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : M/s.T.Indrachithu, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.439 of Cr.P.C.

PRAYER :- For a Bail in Crime No.6 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police.

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner/A1, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 07.09.2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 448,417,376,294(b) and 506(i) of IPC on the file of the respondent police seeks bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner fell in love with the defacto complainant and on the pretext of marriage had physical relationship and thereafter refused to marry her. Hence the complaint.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that both the petitioner and the defacto complainant loved each other several months ago and they have broken their love. Even according to the case of prosecution the petitioner with the consent of the defacto complainant had physical relationship with the victim girl. He would also submit that the petitioner never promised the victim girl that he will marry her. He would also submit that the petitioner was arrested on 07.09.2020 and he is still in judicial custody, hence he seeks bail.

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

4. The learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) would submit that the petitioner on the pretext of marrying the victim had physical relationship with her and thereafter refused to marry her. Hence he vehemently opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

5. It is seen that the petitioner and the victim fell in love and on the pretext of marrying he has physical relationship with the victim girl and now denying the physical relationship with the defacto complainant. Infact on the complaint lodged by the petitioner she has stated that the petitioner had taken the victim girl had physical relationship and thereafter her in lurch.

6. Taking into consideration the fact of the case and also taking into consideration the act committed by the petitioner against the women, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

7. Hence, this petition stands dismissed.

sd/- 02/11/2020 / TRUE COPY / / /2020 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

1. THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, PALAYAMKOTTAI, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT.

2. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, TENKASI, TENKASI DISTRICT.

3. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.12198 of 2020 Date :02/11/2020 AAV TE/PN/SAR-III : 06/11/2020 : 2P/4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/