BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Second day of November Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU CRL OP(MD) No.13940 of 2011 ESAKKIAPPAN ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED Vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICER ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, NANGUNERI, TUTICORIN DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. ABARNA Advocate For Respondent : MR.K.S.DURAI PANDIAN, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.11 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police for offences under Sections 452, 417, 376 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code. He was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 15.09.2011. He has come forward with the present application seeking bail. 2.According to the case of prosecution, the de-facto complainant married one Michel Konsal on 16.05.2010. However, the petitioner gave a phone call to the husband of the de-facto complainant and informed him that he alone is the husband of the said Ananthi and, therefore, Michel Konsal should not claim husbandship as against Ananthi. On hearing this, Michel Konsal sent her back to her parents' home. While so, the petitioner entered into her house, threatened her and committed rape on her. He also forced her not to disclose the same to anybody and, therefore, she did not prefer any complaint immediately to the police. Now, she is pregnant. Hence, she has preferred a complaint before the police. Thus, there is a delay in preferring the complaint. Based on the said complaint, the present case has been registered against the petitioner. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that for the alleged offences said to have been happened several months before, complaint has been given only recently and hence, there is an inordinate delay in preferring the complaint. 4.In my considered view, in this case, though rape was allegedly committed long before, according to the de-facto complainant, she was forced not to disclose the same to anybody and hence, she did not disclose the entire fact, more particularly because she was already married. Therefore, the delay in this case, cannot be taken very serious note of. Apart from that, now, the de-facto complainant is pregnant. The child in the womb, on being delivered in this world, should know as to who the father is. The petitioner is not prepared to accept that he is the biological father of the child. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the de-facto complainant lived with her husband for some time and, therefore, the husband may be the biological father of the child. This stand taken by this accused also needs to be investigate. Thus, the offence said to have been committed by the petitioner cannot be construed only as a rape and the same is going to very much affect the future of the child as well. 6. In view of the above position, I do not find any merit in this case and hence, this petition is dismissed. sd/- 02/11/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, NANGUNERI, TUTICORIN DISTRICT. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, PALAYAMKOTTAI. 3. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1. CC to M/S. B.PUGALENDHI, Advocate SR.No.37608 SR : 15.11.2011 : 2P/5C ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.13940 of 2011 Date :02/11/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/