Madras High Court dismisses anticipatory bail plea by former TN Minister M Manikandan in rape case

The Madras High Court on Wednesday dismissed an anticipatory bail plea moved by former State Minister M Manikandan in a case involving allegations of rape on the false pretext of marriage, cheating and forced miscarriages (M Manikandan v. State). .Justice Abdul Quddhose held that it is not desirable to grant the former Minister anticipatory bail since the investigation was at the preliminary stage, and given Manikandan's influential status. ."In the case on hand, the petitioner has been charged with an heinous crime. He was an Ex.M.L.A and an Ex.Minister. He held office as Minister till August 2019 which is not long ago. The witnesses to the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner are his staff members, servants and his friends. Therefore, after giving due consideration to the gravity of the offences which are serious in nature and in view of the nature of the witnesses who may have to be interrogated, there is reasonable apprehension that there is a possibility that the petitioner may tamper with the evidence/witnesses as the investigation is in a preliminary stage and some more witnesses and materials will have to be unearthed by the investigating team to find out the truth. There is also a possibility that the petitioner may flee from justice using his influence and money power, if anticipatory bail is granted at this stage. This Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the triple tests required for the purpose of getting anticipatory bail", the Court's order stated..The judge added that in an alleged offence of rape, that too when the investigation is in a preliminary stage, courts should act with circumspection while deciding an application for anticipatory bail. ."There will also be public outcry if the petitioner is released on anticipatory bail when the investigation is in the beginning stage," he observed. .Manikandan held the portfolio for Information Technology in Tamil Nadu during the earlier AIADMK-led regime, between 2017 and 2019. .In May this year, a complaint was lodged by a Malaysian national alleging that Manikandan had been in a physical relationship with her for years on the false promise that he would leave his wife and marry her..The complainant further alleged that she was impregnanted thrice and forced by Manikandan to terminate the pregnancies. She claimed further that the former Minister continued the physical relationship in a brutal manner even after the termination of the pregnancies. Later, in April this year, the Minister is alleged to have threatened the complainant to go back to Malaysia without creating any further problems for him. He is also accused of having threatened to upload nude photographs of the complainant online. The Court was told that one such photograph was sent to the complainant's Telegram account. The complainant has alleged that the former Minister has been sending abusive messages and threats since April 15. .The FIR filed on the basis of this complaint cited Sections 417 (punishment for cheating), 376 (rape), 313 (punishment for causing miscarriage without consent of the woman), 323 (punishment for voluntarily causing hurt) and 506(i) (punishment for criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), read with Section 67A (punishment for publishing or transmitting of material containing sexually explicit act, etc., in electronic form) of the Information Technology Act..Manikandan, however, denied all the allegations. He argued that the complaint was filed after repeated attempts for a compromise and extortionist demands was not accepted by him. The Court further recorded submissions made for Manikandan that the complainant was an adult who had consented to sexual intercourse and that there was no material to show that abortions were forced upon her. It was also argued that the complainant operated as part of a gang that set up honey traps for vulnerable persons in society and that she had threatened others with similar allegations..Prima facie, the Court said it could not rule out the offences alleged against the petitioner (Manikandan). "The nude photograph of the defacto complainant found in her whatsapp messages alleged to have been sent by the petitioner from his mobile number also creates suspicion about the involvement of the petitioner in the sexual offence. Based on the aforesaid suspicion, the police have registered the FIR against the petitioner under section 376 IPC which will have to be investigated," the Court added.. Justice Quddhose further opined that he may have considered the grant of anticipatory bail if the petitioner was only charged with the relatively minor offences under Sections 417, 323 and 506, IPC. .However, given that he was accused of the more grave offences of rape and causing forced miscarriage, the Court decided against the grant of anticipatory bail. "The reason for the above observation is that in grave offences, if the accused is equipped with an order of anticipatory bail even before interrogation, it would greatly harm the investigation and would impede the prospects of unearthing all the ramifications involved in the alleged commission of the offences and public interest may also suffer as a consequence. If granted anticipatory bail at this preliminary stage that too for offence of grave nature involving a woman, the investigation may get delayed as there is every possibility that the petitioner with his influence and affluence may scuttle the investigation," the Court reasoned..The truth will have to be unearthed only after the investigation and trial, the Court further emphasised, before ultimately concluding that the balance is tilted against the petitioner when it comes to the grant of anticipatory bail. .The judge also noted that Manikandan had not, till date, come forward to cooperate with the investigation. "... that is also one of the major factors which has influenced the mind of the Court to reject the petitioner's request for anticipatory bail at this preliminary stage of investigation," the Court said..With these, among other, observations, the anticipatory bail plea was dismissed. .Advocate R John Sathyan appeared for the petitioner. Government Advocate (criminal side) R Muniyapparaj appeared for the State. Advocate V Raghavachari appeared for the complainant (intervenor), briefed by M/s KRS Law Firm..[Read Order]