IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

Wednesday, the Eighteenth day of May Two Thousand Twenty Two

PRESENT

The Hon`ble Mr Justice N. ANAND VENKATESH

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.11566 of 2022

MASILAMANI

[ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ]

Vs

STATE REP BY ITS

[ RESPONDENT ]

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

KARUMANDURAI POLICE STATION,

KARUMANDURAI,

SALEM DISTRICT

CRIME NO.25 OF 2022

For Petitioner : M/S.SP.YUVARAJ Advocate

For Respondent : MR.S.SANTHOSH, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side)

PETITION FOR BAIL 439 Cr.P.C.

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody

on 05.03.2022 for the alleged offence under Section 448, 324, 376 &

511 of IPC in Crime No.25 of 2022 on the file of the respondent

police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner barged

into the house of the defacto complainant and pushed her down and

attempted to rape on her. On the alarm raised by the defacto

complainant, the neighbours rushed to the scene of occurance and the

petitioner ran away from the house.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner has already suffered incarceration for nearly 74 days. It

was further submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated

in this case due to the money dispute and he is the only bread winner

to sustain the livelihood of his family.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. The learned Government Advocate Criminal Side submitted that

the petitioner had raised defence as if there was a money dealing

between him and the defacto complainant and hence a false complaint

has been given. However there are absolutely no materials to

substantiate the said defence and during the course of investigation,

it has come to the light that the petitioner did forcibly entered

into the house of the defacto complainant and attempted to rape her.

The learned Government Advocate also submitted that this was an

isolated incident and there are no previous antecedents against the

petitioner.

5. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on

either side and perused the materials available on record.

6. This is a case where the petitioner seems to have been driven

by lust and had barged into the house of the defacto complainant and

attempted to sexually assault her. The hue and cry made by the

defacto complainant brought the neighbours around the house to the

scene of occurance and the petitioner is said to have escaped from

the scene of occurance. The petitioner is also attempting to develop

a defence as if there was a money dispute between the petitioner and

the defacto complainant and false complainant has been given against

him. This was an isolated incident in which the petitioner was

involved and there was no bad antecedents against the petitioner.

That apart, the petitioner had suffered incarceration for nearly 74

days. The investigation has almost been completed and only the final

report requires to be filed before the concerned Court.

7. Taking into consideration, the facts and circumstances of the

case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail by

subjecting him to stringent conditions.

8. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released 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 No.I, Athur District and out of the

two sureties, one should be the blood relative of the petitioner, and

on further conditions that:-

[a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb

Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy

of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity.

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police

daily at 6.30 pm, until further orders.

[c