Madras High Court Grants Conditional Bail To Former AIADMK Minister M. Manikandan In Rape Case

The Madras High Court on Wednesday granted conditional bail to former AIADMK Minister M. Manikandan in a rape case. The former Minister had been charged with the offence of rape on the false pretext of marriage. He had been arrested on June 26, 2021, and has been in judicial custody since.

Justice M. Nirmal Kumar extended a conditional bail to the Minister after observing that there lies "a clear distinction between rape and consensual sex". The Court opined, 

"The defacto complainant was well aware of the consequence that the marriage between her and the petitioner would not take place. 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".

Background:

The complainant is a Malaysian Citizen who was employed in the Malaysian Tourism Department and Corporation. On May 3, 2017 during the course of her official work, she had come in contact with the accused as the accused had expressed his interest in starting a business in Malaysia. Shortly thereafter, the complainant and the accused began a relationship and started to reside together.

During their period of cohabitation which lasted for 5 years, the complainant alleged that the accused would physically harass her. Furthermore, as alleged despite constant assurances of marriage, the accused did not end up marrying the complainant. Consequently, the accused also allegedly threatened to leak the complainant's private photographs if she did not return to Malaysia as demanded by him. The complainant also alleged that during the course of their relationship, she was forced to undergo abortions on multiple occasions.

Observations:

Pursuant to a perusal of the rival contentions, the Court noted that the complainant was aware of the fact that the petitioner is a married man with children and is also a public personality. Further, the Court observed that from the evidence collected it could not be concluded that the complainant was forced to undergo abortion by the accused.

Refuting the allegations of the complainant, the Court noted that the complainant had intentionally enjoyed the wealth and lifestyle of the accused and had voluntarily continued her relationship from the year 2017 onwards.

Further, citing the instance of the accused losing his Ministership on August 8, 2017, the Court inferred that the relationship shared by the complainant with the accused was consensual.

"The de facto complainant is aware that from 08.08.2017, the petitioner lost his Ministership and hereafter to, she continued her relationship and there was no obstacle for the defacto complainant to compel the petitioner to get married after the petitioner was dropped from the Ministry. Thus, the defacto complainant continued her relationship irrespective of the petitioner being a minister or not, leading to inference the relationship was cordial and voluntary", the order read.

Justice Kumar also observed that in the instant case, the complainant had the intelligence to understand that the marriage proposal of the complainant would have received a severe objection from the family of the accused. Further, it was also observed that the complainant had voluntarily and consensually engaged in a sexual relationship with the accused.

"The de facto complainant was aware of the fact that the petitioner was a married man and the marriage proposal of the defacto complainant was bound to be seriously opposed by the family members of the petitioner. Further, the defacto complainant had sufficient intelligence to understand the significance of marriage quality of the act she was consenting and she continued her relationship in secret till lodging of the complaint. The defacto complainant had shown no resistance to the petitioner's overtures. Thus, freely exercised a choice between resistance and assent", the order stated. 

The Court also took into consideration that the co-accused in this case who had allegedly threatened the complainant on the behalf of the accused had been granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 25.06.2021.

Therefore, pursuant to the aforementioned observations, the Court granted bail to the accused on the basis of the following conditions,

(a)the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on executing his own bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) before the Superintendent of the concerned prison, in which the petitioner is confined;

(b)the petitioner shall execute two sureties for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) each, before the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai within a period of 15 days from the date of lifting of lock down and commencement of regular functioning of Court below, failing which the bail granted by this Court shall stand dismissed automatically;

(c)the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the learned Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;

(d)On release, the petitioner shall report before the respondent Police for a period of two weeks daily at 10.30 a.m., and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation;

(e)The petitioner shall surrender his passport while executing sureties before the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. If no passport is available, the petitioner shall file an affidavit to that effect;

(f) the petitioner shall not commit any offences of similar nature;

(g) the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

(h) the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

(i) on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560];

(j) if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.

Case Title: Dr.M.Manikandan v. State

Click Here To Read/Download Order