BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Twelfth day of August Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice R.MALA CRL OP(MD) No.10500 of 2011 SUDHAKARAN : PETITIONER/SOLE ACCUSED Vs. THE STATE REP.BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE MATHICHIYAM POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT. CRIME NO.973/2011 : RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. P.KRISHNASAMY Advocate For Respondent : Mr. A.RAMAR Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner is the sole accused and he was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 24.06.2011 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 417, 420 and 376 I.P.C., in Crime No.973 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seeks bail. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner and the de-facto complainant are the relatives, they loved each other and on the fateful day, the petitioner entered into the de-facto complainant's house and gave false promise to marry her and had sexual intercourse. He would further submit that both family members accepted that they promised that the marriage will be taken place after two years and subsequently, after two years, the petitioner's family members are not willing to perform the marriage with the de-facto complainant and hence, she forced to give a complaint and now, the case has been registered on 23.06.2011 and if at all the offence under Sections 417 and 420 I.P.C has been made out, it is bailable in nature. He would further submit that the de- facto complainant has not sent for medical examination and the ingredients of Sections 376 I.P.C are not made out and the accused was arrested on 24.06.2011 and he is in judicial custody for more than 50 days and the investigation is considerably over and hence, he prays for enlargement on bail. 3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl.side) would submit that the alleged occurrence has been taken place on 19.03.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and the victim girl is aged about 17 years. He would further submit that on 19.03.2011, the occurrence has taken place since, the petitioner has given a false promise that he will marry her and subsequently, the parents of the petitioner also accepted that the marriage will be performed after two years, but now, they are not willing to perform the marriage of the de-facto complainant and hence, she forced to give a complaint and a case has been registered on 23.06.2011 and the investigation is going on and hence, he prays for dismissal of this application. 4. Considering the rival submissions made by both sides and also considering the fact that the petitioner and the de-facto complainant are the relatives and they loved each other and the occurrence has been taken place on 19.03.2011 and admittedly on that day, the de- facto complainant is aged about 17 years, but as per the version of both counsel the petitioner has given a false promise and had sexual intercourse but, now he refused to marry her and the payment of Rs.40 thousand will not absolve the criminal liability of the petitioner and since, at the time of occurrence, the victim is 17 years old and a complaint has been given on 23.06.2011 and the investigation is going on and hence, I do not find any merits in this application. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. Sd/- 12/08/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL PRISON, MADURAI. 2. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE MATHICHIYAM POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT. ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.10500 of 2011 Date :12/08/2011 NSV/17.8.11/2P/4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/