IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2011 / 26TH SRAVANA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 6107 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.111/2011 OF CBCID.HHW/II/EKM/11 of Ernakulam PETITIONER : ACCUSED --------------------------- ABRAHAM SEBASTIAN, S/O. LATE S.I. SEBASTIAN, HOUSE NO. M -55, CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR, SOUTH KALAMASSERY. BY ADV. SRI.M.A.MOHAMMED SIRAJ RESPONDENT: --------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM CRIME NO. 111 OF 2011 OF HHW/II CBCID ERNAKULAM PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Bail Appln.No.6107 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of August, 2011 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Petitioner is accused No.108 in Crime No.111 of 2011 of C.B.C.I.D. HHW/II/EKM/'11 of Ernakulam. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 366-A, 376(2)(g), 354, 506(1), 202 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act. 3. The prosecution case is that the victim girl aged below 16 years was sexually abused by about 150 persons. The victim's father is also one of the accused. The allegation is that her own father had thrown her to flesh trade and he facilitated several persons to procure the girl for sexual abuse. 4. The allegation against the petitioner is that he along with accused No.107, Bijoy John procured the victim girl from a pimp, namely, Julie (accused No.105). It is alleged that accused Nos.107 and 108 came in a car to the place called Pathadipalam where accused No.105, Julie was waiting. Accused No.1 brought the girl at that place. Accused Bail Appln.No.6107/2011 : 2 : Nos.107 and 108 took the girl to a place called Njarakkal. It is alleged that the petitioner is having a house at Njarakkal and the offence was committed in that house. It is alleged that accused Nos.107 and 108 sexually abused the girl. 5. Adv.Sri.S.Sreekumar, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that except the confession statement of accused No.107 there is no other material to connect the petitioner with the offence. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the F.I. Statement as well as in the 164 Cr.P.C. statement given by the victim, there is no mention about the name of the petitioner. The learned Senior counsel also submitted that no materials have been collected by the investigating agency to show what is stated in the confession statement of the accused No.107 is true. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that confession statement made by a co-accused, though not admissible in evidence, can be utilised for the purpose of investigation and for that purpose the confession statement can be relied on. The investigation is in progress. Materials are to be collected. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be required. All the materials would be collected before Bail Appln.No.6107/2011 : 3 : the final report is filed. The learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that the investigating agency can not be expected to collect all those materials which are necessary to prove the case at the time of trial, before making a person as accused in the case and before arresting him. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the submission made by the learned Public Prosecutor appears to be more plausible and acceptable. 7. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to get the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The matter requires investigation. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be required in the case. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it would adversely affect the proper and smooth investigation of the case. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE skj