BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Fourteenth day of September Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT THE HON`BLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALA CRL OP(MD) No.11549 of 2011 SUDHAKARAN ... PETITIONER/SOLE ACCUSED Vs THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE MATHICHIYAM POLICE STATION MADURAI DISTRICT CR.NO.973/2011 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. P.KRISHNASAMY Advocate For Respondent : A.RAMAR, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,(Crl. Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner is arrayed as an accused and he was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 24.06.2011 for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 417, 420 and 376 IPC in Crime No.973 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence seeks bail. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent persons and a false case has been foisted against him, He would further submit that the alleged occurrence has been taken place on 19.03.2009 and the complaint has been given on 24.06.2011 by the defacto complainant. The defacto complainant is aged about 19 years and the petitioner is aged about 21 years and both are belonging to same community, The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner herein gave a false promise to marry the defacto complainant and have a sexual intercourse with her and thereafter, both sides elder people agreed to perform the marriage after the defacto complainant attained the age of majority and the has been reduced in writing on 21.03.2009. Now, they are taking steps for performing the marriage of the petitioner with another girl and hence, the defacto complainant was forced to give a complainant. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that on 01.04.2011, the defacto complainant has received a sum of Rs.40,000/- and she agreed not to force for marriage and the marriage agreement has been cancelled but now she turned down gave a complaint against the petitioner and now he was arrested and he is judicial custody for nearly 80 days and hence, he has come forward with the application, He would further submit that this is a second application and the earlier application was dismissed on 12.08.2011 by this court and since the investigation is over, he prayed for the enlargement on bail. 4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that when the victim girl was minor, the petitioner gave a false promise to marry her and molested her and then only, the elder people have entered into an agreement for performing the marriage after the victim girl attained the age of majority, but now he refused to marry her and hence, the complaint has been given. He would further submit that the investigation is going https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ on and the petitioner is making arrangements to marry another girl and if he enlarged on bail, he will get married with another girl and it will affect the life of the defacto complainant 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. Perusal of the complaint, it has been stated that the occurrence has been taken place on 19.03.2009 and the complaint has been given on 23.06.2011 and on 19.03.2009, when the defacto complainant watching the television, the petitioner has entered into the house and raped her by giving false promise to marry her. Immediately, the victim girl intimated the same to her mother and both sides elders had entered into an agreement and they agreed to perform their marriage after the victim girl attained the age of majority, Thereafter when they demanded for marriage the petitioner refused to marry her. The document filed by the petitioner would show that on 01.04.2011, one marriage agreement/revokable deed has been executed in the presence of the petitioner wherein it has been mentioned that on21.03.2009, there was an agreement for marriage. The prima facie prosecution would reveal that the petitioner has given a false promise to marry the victim girl who is only 17 years and has sexual intercourse with her and immediately both parties agreed for their marriage and now, the petitioner has refused to marry here. Hence, the ingredients of the offence have been prima facie made against the petitioner. Even though the petitioner has paid a sum of Rs.40,000/- to the defacto complainant for not marrying her, I do not find any merits in this petition and the petitioner is not entitled for bail and hence, the criminal original petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly this criminal original petition is dismissed. sd/- 14/09/2011 / 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 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MATHICHIYAM POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT 3. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSEUCTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI GH : 19.09.2011 : 2p/4c ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.11549 of 2011 Date :14/09/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/