1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Fourth day of November Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice S.NAGAMUTHU CRL OP(MD) Nos.14151 & 14251 of 2011 SARATHKUMAR ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 IN CRL.OP.NO.14151/2011 SAKTHIVEL ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED IN CRL.OP.NO.14251/2011 Vs THE STATE REP.BY THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, THIRUPPATHUR, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT, CRIME NO.6/2011 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT IN BOTH THE PETITONS For Petitioner : M/S. R.ANAND Advocate in Crl.OP(MD)No.14151/2011 M/S. B.ASHA Advocate in Crl.OP(MD)No.14151/2011 For Respondent : MR. K.S.DURAI PANDIAN, Additional Public Prosecutor in both the petitions PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner in Crl.OP(MD)No.14151 of 2011 is accused NO.1 and the petitioner in Crl.OP(MD)No.14251 of 2011 is accused No.2 in Crime No.6 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police for offences under Sections 147, 366, 328, 376 IPC. They were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 08.10.2011. In these circumstances, they seek bail. 2.According to the case of prosecution, the victim girl is aged 18 ears. She is studying in a local college. The first accused by name Sakthivel had fallen in love with her. The FIR would further go to show that the victim girl was also willing in love with the first accused. When she wanted the first accused to marry her, the first accused stated that he would marry her provided his parents also gave consent. While so, on 07.10.2011, at about 10.00 a.m., the victim girl and her mother had gone to Thiruppathur to a Super Market. When the mother of the victim girl was inside the shop, the victim girl was awaiting outside and at that time, it is stated that these petitioners along with other accused came in a car and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 took her in the car. On their way they gave some liquid to her to drink and she further claims that she fainted. Thereafter, when the car developed some repair, they abandoned the car and ran away. Thereafter, the parents took her to the hospital. With these allegations, the present case has been registered. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case and there was o such occurrence at all. He would further point out that neither there was any rape nor any molestation and a simple love affair has been converted into the alleged crime of rape, by the parents in order to break the love affair between the first accused and the victim girl. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed for bail. 4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced the case diary. A perusal of the same would go to show that according to the FIR, neither there was any molestation nor any rape. There is no material to show that there is sexual assault made on the victim girl at all. The victim girl was examined by the doctor on 10.10.2011. The medical certificate produced before this Court would go to show that there was no external injuries at all on the victim girl. Further, the doctor has opined that the hymn was intact and the victim girl has not lost her virginity. This would clearly show that there was no sexual assault made on the victim girl. Though an offence under Section 376 was also included in the FIR, there is absolutely no material for the same. The other serious offence alleged is kidnapping. From fact that the victim girl was insisting the first accused to marry her, which is evident from the averments made in the FIR itself, the prima facie allegation of kidnapping is also doubtful. 5.Having regard to the above facts and the fact that the petitioners are in prison from 08.10.2011 onwards and the investigation would have made substantial progress, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioners, but with stringent conditions. 6.In the result, this petition is ordered and bail is granted to the petitioners on the following conditions:- (i)The petitioners shall be enlarged on bail on executing a separate bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) with two sureties https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruppathur; and (ii)the petitioners shall remain at Pudukkottai and report before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Pudukkottai every day at 10.30 a.m., until further orders. sd/- 04/11/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THIRUPPATHUR 2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE SIVAGANGAI 3 THE OFFICER INCHARGE, SUB JAIL, THANJAVUR 4 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I, PUDUKKOTTAI 5 THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, THIRUPPATHUR, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT, 6 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1. CC to M/S. R.ANAND Advocate SR.No.38263 +1. CC to M/S B. ASHA Advocate SR.No.38032 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) Nos.14151 & 14251 of 2011 Date :04/11/2011 TR :08.11.2011: 3p/9c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/