BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Twenty First day of September Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice R.MALA CRL OP(MD) No.11428 of 2011 M. CHINNARASU ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED NO.1 Vs STATE BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, E2, MATHICHIYAM POLICE STTION, MADURAI DIST. CR.NO 970 OF 2011 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. B.VINOTHKUMAR Advocate For Respondent : M/S. A.RAMAR, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner is arrayed as A1 and he was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 21.06.2011 for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 366, 376 read with 120(b) I.P.C. , in Crime No.970 of 2009 on the file of the respondent police and seeks bail. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is arrayed as A1 in Crime No.970 of 2011 which has been registered on the basis of the complaint given by Muneeswari for the offence under Sections 366, 376 read with 120(b) I.P.C. He would further submit that the defacto complainant, on her own accord, went along with the petitioner on 11.06.2011 and both of them left to his residence at Ramapuram, Krishnagiri District and stayed there till 13.06.2011 and both of them went to Kodaikanal and stayed at Meena Cottage, which is owned by one Arumugam, wherein the petitioner without the consent of the defacto complainant had sexual intercourse with her. 3. He would further submit that the defacto complainant had love affair with the petitioner and thereby, she compelled him to marry her as 2nd wife and since, he refused to marry her, the defacto complainant gave a complaint, to harass the petitioner by one way or other and the petitioner was arrested on 21.06.2011 and he is in judicial custody for more than 70 days and the investigation is considerably over and hence, he prayed for enlarging the petitioner. 4. Repudiating the same, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) would submit that the petitioner is arrayed as A1 and even though, he is a married man, he gave a false promise to marry https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the defacto complainant, aged about 19 years and abducted her and have sexual intercourse with her and hence, the defacto complainant has given the complaint and the investigation is going on and hence, he prayed for the dismissal of the application. 5. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 6. Even though, the petitioner is a married man, he has given false promise to marry the defacto complainant, who is aged about 19 years and taken her to various places and he has sexual intercourse with her. Considering the age of the defacto complainant, the petitioner herein had exploited the adolescent victim girl and had sexual intercourse by giving false promise to marry her. Subsequently, since the petitioner refused to marry the victim girl, a case has been registered on 21.06.2011 and on that day itself, the petitioner was arrested and the investigation is going on. Therefore, considering the gravity of the offence that the petitioner, who is a married man, abducted the girl, aged about 19 years and had sexual intercourse with her by giving false promise to marry her and hence, I am of the opinion that even though he is in judicial custody from 21.06.2011, it is not a fit case to grant bail to the petitioner and the petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, this Criminal original petition is dismissed. sd/- 21/09/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI 2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, E2, MATHICHIYAM POLICE STTION, MADURAI DIST. +1. CC to M/S. B.VINOTHKUMAR Advocate SR.No.32105 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.11428 of 2011 Date :21/09/2011 SMA/21.9.2011/4C/2P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/