Former Minister M. Manikandan of All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) has moved the Madras High Court seeking anticipatory bail in a rape case booked against him on the basis of a complaint lodged by an actor based in Malaysia. Denying all allegations levelled against him, the petitioner has accused the complainant of being an extortionist who operated a gang to set up honey traps.
The advance bail petition had been listed before Justice R. Subramanian on Thursday. The petitioner said that he was a general surgeon and a fellow of the Indian Association of Gastrointestinal Endosurgeons. Hailing from Ramanathapuram district, he was in government service for 12 years and served at hospitals in Chennai and Madurai before joining politics. His wife was a gynaecologist in Madurai.
Claiming that he got acquainted with the actor through the second accused Bharani, the former Minister said that she insisted upon him to make investments in Malaysia but he turned down the proposal stating that he did not have the required resources. Claiming that he had offered a loan of ₹5 lakh to the woman for the medical treatment of her parents, he said a dispute arose when he demanded that she she return the money.
Thereafter, the woman began blackmailing him and the present complaint was a fallout of such ill intentions, he alleged. The petitioner also contended that Sections 376 (rape) and 417 (cheating) of the Indian Penal Code could not be invoked as the complainant was 27 years of age and she was a consenting party to the sexual relationship even as per her version. He claimed that she was aware of his marital status.
In the advance bail petition, filed through his counsel R. John Sathyan, the former Minister said that Section 313 (causing miscarriage without woman’s consent) of the IPC could not be invoked in the case since there were no material to prove that he was responsible for her pregnancy and that he had coerced her to undergo abortion. He said the charge under Section 323 (causing hurt voluntarily) was not backed by evidence.
He said the invocation of Section 506 part II (criminal intimidation) of IPC was not sustainable since it was the complainant who had been threatening him to extort money. He questioned the charge under Section 67A of the Information Technology Act of 2000 too and claimed that he had not taken an obscene photo which the actress had claimed to have been used by him to prevent her from approaching the police.
Questioning the timing of the complaint and pointing out that it had been lodged after a change of government in the State, the petitioner said that he had nothing to confess and that his arrest would only amount to prejudging the case against him.
