1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Nineteenth day of September Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice R.MALA CRL OP(MD) No.9829 of 2011 1.ELANGO 2.AYYAR @ V. BALAKRISHNAN ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 8 & 9 Vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, RAMNAD, CRIME NO.2/2011 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. R.C.PAULKANAGARAJ Advocate For Respondent : MR. A. RAMAR, Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners/A8 and A9 apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 366(A) 376 IPC and Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of I.T.C.P. Act 1956 in crime No.2 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail. 2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioners are arrayed as A8 and A9 and one Pandiselvi is the de-facto complainant. The case of the prosecution is that the de-facto complainant said to be a minor girl has pushed into prostitution by various pimps of various places in and around Tamil Nadu and she has been in gloomed for more than two years and the petitioners are alleged to have sex with the girl and as per the prosecution, since she is a minor, the petitioners raped the girl. He would further submit that the de-facto complainant was produced by one Thajudeen and if at all the petitioner had committed the offence for the offences under Sections, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of I.T.C.P, Act., it will not amount to Section 376 IPC. He would further submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and the name of the 2nd petitioner has not been found place in the FIR and since their names have been flashed in the print and visual media they apprehend arrest and approached this Court by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 filing these criminal original petitions and hence, he prays for enlarging them on anticipatory bail. 3.Repudiating the same, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the de-facto complainant is a minor girl and these petitioners had sexual intercourse with the minor girl at Rameshwaram and the minor girl was exploited by the pimps and she was also exploited by so many persons and A1 Thajudeen has already been detained under Goondas' Act and the investigation is going on and if the petitioners are enlarged on bail, they will tamper the witnesses and abscond from the jurisdiction and hence, he prayed for the dismissal of the application. 4.I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the case diary produced before this Court. 5.Perusal of the FIR would show that the case has been registered on 25.07.2011 on the basis of the complaint given by the victim girl Pandiselvi, who is aged about 17 years. In the complaint, there are 15 persons names have been mentioned and these petitioners viz., Elango and Ayyar @ V.Balakrishnan are shown as A8 and A9 and these petitioners name have also been found place in the FIR. In the complaint, it was stated that the petitioner has studies upto 3rd standard and she was given marriage to her Aunt's son Ramkumar and only 10 days she was residing in her matrimonial home and thereafter, she was residing in her parental home. At the time of occurrence, she was working in Gurusamy Textiles and on one day, the mother of one Poongodi has taken her also she was inducted in the prostitution for meagre amount. The averments in the FIR has clearly proved that the minor innocent girl has been exploited by the accused persons. The petitioners are A8 and A9 and they are having sex with the de-facto complainant at Rameshwaram. In the complaint, it was further stated that at the instance of one Kalaiselvi/A5, A8 to A11 have raped her and then only, she has given the complaint. The case has been registered for the offence under Section 366(A), 376 IPC and Sections 3,4,5 and 6 of I.T.C.P. Act., since the de-facto complainant is a minor girl, consent by minor girl for sexual intercourse does not arise. The victim girl was taken away from her parental home and she was subjected to rape and the offence is serious in nature and the offences are not against the individual and it is against the Society. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 6.Considering the facts and circumstances and since the investigation is going on, I do not find any merits in the applications and hence I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner and the application deserves to be dismissed. 7.Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed. sd/- 19/09/2011 / 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, RAMNAD, 2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1. CC to M/S. R.C.PAULKANAGARAJ Advocate SR.No.32098 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.9829 of 2011 Date :19/09/2011 TR : 22.09.2011: 3p/4c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/