Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Madras High Court has granted conditional bail to Anto Mathivanan and Marlena Anne, the son and daughter-in-law of ruling DMK MLA E. Karunanithi, in connection with the alleged torture of their domestic help, a girl from the Scheduled Caste Community. The couple, who were initially absconding, were arrested on January 25.

Taking into consideration the fact that the couple had a 4-year-old daughter, who was now without parents, the bench of Justice M. Nirmal Kumar granted them bail with the condition that they must appear before the investigating officer daily for two weeks and sign in at a police station.

Court also directed the couple to not cause any inconvenience or trouble knowingly or unknowingly to the de-facto complainant when released on bail. "...failing which, the bail shall be cancelled without any further reference, " court ordered.

"If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC," court further directed. 

A case was registered against the couple for offence under Sections 294(b), 324, 325, 506(i) of IPC r/w Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The allegations against the couple were that they had promised the victim girl and her family that the girl would join a college to pursue her study after her employment with the couple and she would be paid Rs.2,00,000 and monthly remuneration of Rs.60,000. However, on the contrary, they took the victim girl, kept her in isolation, and made her study only BBA which was not of the victim girl's choice. Moreover, allegedly, the victim girl was ill-treated and she was almost kept in confinement by the couple.

On February 6, the Principal District and Sessions Judge rejected the couple's bail plea, against which, they moved the high court.

The court was informed that the couple enlisted the services of domestic help via a manpower agency, offering a monthly salary of Rs 16,000. Despite the accusations of torture from the victim, the couple denied any wrongdoing and affirmed that they had treated her with well.

The couple's counsel argued that since the accused were kin of a sitting MLA, the complaint had been politicalized giving wide adverse publicity creating sensation in the social media and print media and the Police fearing for the adverse publicity, took a hasty step in arresting the couple. 

The high court noted that substantial portion of investigation in the matter had been conducted and the victim as well as her mother had been examined and their statements had been recorded.

Therefore, court set aside the court below's order and allowed the appeal filed by the couple. 

Case Title: Marlena Ann and Another v. State and 2 Others