E-Paper
Madras HC grants conditional bail to former AIADMK minister
After hearing both sides of the argument, the court noted that they were in a relationship from May 2017 to April 2021 and the complainant had the intelligence to understand what the Malayasian woman was consenting to.
The Madras high court on Wednesday granted conditional bail to former AIADMK minister M Manikandan who was arrested for allegedly raping and cheating a Malayasian citizen, who had acted in Tamil and Malayalam movies, by falsely promising to marry her.
Justice M Nirmal Kumar ordered for the petitioner to be released on bail after he surrendered his passport and deposited two sureties of ₹10,000 each on the condition that he will appear before the investigating officer daily for two weeks and thereafter whenever called.
The minister and the Malayasia women had been living together though Manikandan was married. According to the complainant, the accused had established sexual relations with her on the false pretext of marriage after divorcing his wife. She also alleged that she was thrice forced to abort her pregnancy by the minister.
Manikandan’s counsel pointed out that a substantial portion of the investigation was over and assured the court that the former minister will “not evade from justice and shall abide by any condition”. He stated that the case was filed out of political vendetta.
Earlier, the court had granted Manikandan interim protection till June 9 before dismissing his anticipatory bail plea on June 16, following which he was arrested from Bengaluru on June 20. Upon his arrest, police recorded his confession and took him to Madurai where the duo often stayed in an apartment.
In his bail petition, Manikandan argued that the complainant was a well-educated and employed girl and could not have been waylaid by the leader.
After hearing both sides of the argument, the court noted that they were in a relationship from May 2017 to April 2021 and the complainant had the intelligence to understand what she was consenting to.
“The defacto complainant was well aware of the consequence that the marriage between her and the petitioner would not take place,” the court said in its order.
“Thus leading to the inference that she freely, voluntarily and consciously consented to have sexual intercourse with the petitioner and her consent was not in consequence of any misconception of fact and they were living together as man and wife. Thus, there is a clear distinction between rape and consensual sex.”
The Malayasian woman’s counsel did not immediately respond to the court order.
