BABU Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE POONAMALLEE POLICE STATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NORMALLY I decline to grant bail wherever the persons are arrayed as accused persons for an offence under Section 376 IPC. But this case has a special feature and I have to make departure in my view. The facts are as follows: The petitioner is arrayed as an accused for an offence under Sections 376 and 511 of IPC in crime No. 351 of 1995 on the file of Poonamallee Police Station. The grievance of the petitioner is that the alleged victim is aged about 55 and she is a tenant and the petitioner's r elatives being the landlord had already initiated proceedings against the victim to vacate the premises. Since the petitioner asked the complainant to vacate the premises, she has filed the false complaint.

(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution, the incilent took place on 9.6.1995 at 20.30 hours. The petitioner was arrested on 10.6.1995. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the victim was not subjected to any medical examination and no complaint was filed by the victim and not even Section 161 statement was recorded by the police. The case diary was summoned and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor fairly conceded that except the F.I.R. which was given by one person who is not concerned with the victim there is no other record. In the background of this case, when the victim never complained and she was not subjected to medical examination and inaction on the part of the police, keeping in view the age of the victim and other surrounding circumstances, i am of the view that liberty of the petitioner should not be deprived of and he is entitled for bail.