Raju @ Maya v. The Inspector Of Police
CRL OP(MD). No.12734 of 2020 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 24/11/2020 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN CRL OP(MD). No.12734 of 2020 Raju @ Maya ... Petitioner/Sole Accused Vs The State rep.by The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Jeeyapuram, Trichy District Crime No. 30 of 2020.
... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : M/s.T.Lenin Kumar, Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.439 of Cr.P.C.
PRAYER :-For Bail in Crime No.30 of 2020 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 29.08.2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 376(i), 417,294(b) and 506 (ii) 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 marrying her had physical relationship, due to which she become pregnant and now the petitioner suspecting the fidelity of the defacto complainant refusing to marry her. Hence the complaint.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though the petitioner fell in love with the victim girl and thereafter due to her conduct their relationship was broken. He would also submit that the petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 29.08.2020 and till now he is in judicial https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1/2
CRL OP(MD). No.12734 of 2020 custody. He would also submit that he is ready and willing to undergo DNA test and denying the reason for her pregnancy.
4. The learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) submitted that due to love affair between the petitioner and the defacto complainant and on the pretext of marrying the defacto complainant the petitioner had sexual intercourse with the victim girl aged about 23 years , due to which she become pregnant and now the petitioner is also suspecting the fidelity and also refusing to marry the defacto complainant for some reason.
5. Taking into consideration the fact that there is no change in circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
6. Hence this petition stands dismissed. However the respondent police is directed to complete the investigation and file the final report before the concerned Court within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
sd/- 24/11/2020 / 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.
TO 1.THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, TRICHY 2.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, JEEYAPURAM, TRICHY DISTRICT.
3.THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.12734 of 2020 Date :24/11/2020 aav AE/JC/SAR-III (27.11.2020) 2P / 4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2/2