E-Paper
Madras HC grants conditional bail to former AIADMK minister in rape case
Chennai: The Madras high court on Wednesday granted conditional bail to former All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) minister M Manikandan who was arrested on a slew of charges including rape and cheating in a case filed by a Malayasian citizen who had acted in Tamil and Malayalam movies
Chennai: The Madras high court on Wednesday granted conditional bail to former All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) minister M Manikandan who was arrested on a slew of charges including rape and cheating in a case filed by a Malayasian citizen who had acted in Tamil and Malayalam movies.
Justice M Nirmal Kumar ordered that the petitioner be released on bail by surrendering his passport, executing two sureties of a sum of ₹10,000 and to appear before the investigating officer everyday for two weeks and whenever he is called.
According to the complainant, the accused had sexual relations with her on the pretext of marriage after divorcing his wife. The actress complained that she also got pregnant thrice and was forced to abort during this period.
The court had granted Manikandan interim protection from June 3 to 9 which were reserved on the 9th but the court had dismissed his anticipatory bail on June 16. Police arrested Manikandan from Bengaluru on June 20 under Sections 417, 376, 313, 323 and 506(i) of IPC and Section 67-A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
Upon his arrest, police recorded his confession and recovered two of his mobile phones. The accused was also taken to Madurai where the duo had stayed often in an apartment from where a phone was also recovered. The senior counsel for the accused pointed out that a substantial portion of the investigation was over and assured the court that he will “not evade from justice and shall abide by any condition”. He stated that the case was filed out of political vendetta.
After hearing both sides of the argument, the court noted that they were in a relationship from May 2017 to April 2021 was not in dispute. There were differences of opinion when she got pregnant thrice and he had arranged for abortions against her wish. The court said that 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 orders. “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.”
