BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Ninth day of November Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU CRL OP(MD) No.14231 of 2011 MANDU @ MANDU KUMAR ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.3 Vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE TIRUCHENDUR POLICE STATION, THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT. ( CRIME NO.420 OF 2011 ) ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. R.ANAND Advocate For Respondent : MR.K.S.DURAIPANDIAN, Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner is the third accused in Crime No.420 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police, for offences under Sections 366(A), 376, 506(ii) of IPC R/w.Section 3(1) (xii) of SC/ST (POA) Act. He has been in judicial custody from 19.09.2011 onwards. He seeks bail. 2. According to the case of the prosecution, the victim girl/de-facto complainant is aged 14 years. During the relevant point of time, the victim girl was working in a shop placed in an exhibition at Tiruchendur, The petitioner was working in a different shop. On the date of occurrence after the work was completed, the de-facto complainant and the present accused came together to the nearby bus-stop to go to their respective home. It is alleged that at that time , accused Nos.1 and 2 came in a motor-cycle pushed away the petitioner took the victim girl by force and the she was carried elsewhere and raped by accused Nos.1 and 2. The only allegation against the petitioner is that thereafter he did not inform anybody about the occurrence. 3. The Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioner did not commit rape on the victim girl, He would further submit that the petitioner was not present at the time of occurrence. He would further submit that in the bus-stop, the petitioner was pushed away by accused Nos.1 and 2 and the victim girl was taken away in a motor-cycle. 4. i have considered the above submissions. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner has not committed rape on the victim girl and he was not present at the time of occurrence so as to in far any collusion between him and the other accused. It is the positive case of the petitioner that the petitioner and the defacto complaint were waiting only for the bus in the bus-stop. At that time, it is also the case of the prosecution that accused Nos.1 and 2 came in a motor-cycle and pushed away the petitioner and took the victim girl in the motor-cycle by force. Thus, prima facie, as of now there is no allegation to susstantiate that the petitioner is responsible for the commission of crime under sections 376 and 366(A) of IPC, or under the other penal provisions reported in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the FIR. 6. Having regard to the above facts and the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody from 19.09.2011 onwards. I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, but with stringent conditions. 7. In the result this petition is ordered and bail is granted to the petitioner on the following conditions. (i) The petitioner shall be enlarged on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchendur, Thoothukudi District and (ii) the petitioner shall report before the respondent police everyday at 10.30 am, for a period of four weeks. sd/- 09/11/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, TIRUCHENDUR 2. THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE THOOTHUKUDI 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, PALAYAMKOTTAI 4. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE TIRUCHENDUR POLICE STATION, THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT. 5. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1. CC to M/S. R.ANAND Advocate SR.No.38561 GH : 10.11.2011 : 2P/7C ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.14231 of 2011 Date :09/11/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/