HC declines anticipatory bail to women in abduction case

The Madras High Court has declined to grant advance bail to a woman who allegedly abducted his 29-year-old mentally challenged man and remarried him after her father-in-law bequeathed vast properties in his name.
Justice S Vaidyanathan who declined to grant bail to Priyadharshini, who re-married Manoj Rajan, and sister and father of Priyadarshini, in his order yesterday had also directed the Bar Council of India and Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry to inquire about the legal studies of two advocates who were arrayed in the case.
Justice P N Prakash had earlier ordered to inquire into the entire episode of abduction of Manoj Rajan and his re-marriage with Priyadarshini and also transferred the Investigation from Gudalur Police to CB CID.

Apprehending arrest, the three had moved the Court seeking anticipatory bail.
The Judge after narrating the entire case details in his order said "the case of the prosecution is that the victim who is mentally retarded was made to suffer at the hands of the accused persons."
"Priyadarshiuni in order to grab the entire property of Manoj Rajan, along with other accused went to the Charity Home in Gudular and by stating that they will take Manoj Rajan for a walk, abducted him on May 4. On coming to know the abduction of Manoj Rajan, the caretaker N Ananthan as well as the Charity Home people lodged a complaint before the Gudalur police and the same was pending in the inquiry stage"

Thereafter, Ananthan filed a petition and the Court in its order of August 2, issued specific directions to the concerned authorities and transferred the investigation from the Gudalur police to CBCID.

In the meantime Priyadarshin had re-married Manoj Rajan before the Sub Registrar, Royapuram, Chennai for the purpose of swindling his properties.
After the alleged marriage, she had also transferred some of the properties of Manoj Rajan in the name of third parties and huge amount was said to have been received by her.
"The drama of second marriage and clandestine transfer of properties have taken place with the connivance of the two Advocates(A5 and A6.) In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that custodial interrogation of the petitioners herein along with other accused is mandatory. Hence, this Criminal Original Petition seeking anticipatory bail is dismissed as devoid of merits", the judge said and posted the case for further case to another date.