IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 29TH AUGUST 2011 / 7TH BHADRA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 6523 of 2011(I) CRMP.2422/2011 OF J.M.F.C. - I, NORTH PARAVUR CRIME NO.111/11 OF CBCID HHW II CRIME NO.346 OF 2011 OF PARAVUR POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM. PETITIONER: ACCUSED NO.155 ------------------------- ISMAIL, AGED 36, S/O.MOHAMMED, SHERIF MANZIL, KUMBALAPARAMBU, P.O.EDAPPALLY KARA, PONEKKARA VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.UDAYABHANU RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DETECTIVE INSPECTOR, CBCID HHW II, ERNAKULAM, (CRIME 111/11), REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.MANU THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ Bail Appl. NO. 6523 OF 2011 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 29th day of August, 2011 O R D E R This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.155 in CBCID Crime No.111/CR/HHWII/EKM/11 (North Paravur Police Station Crime No.346 of 2011). 2. The offences alleged against the accused are under Sections 366-A, 354, 372, 373, 376 (2) (g), 506 (i), 342 and 202 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act. 3. The gist of the prosecution case is the following: The victim, a girl aged below 16 years, was taken to several places within the State and in the neighbouring States under force and threat and she was compelled to have sexual intercourse with several persons against her will and without her consent for the period from 3-5-2010. The First Information Statement was given by the victim on 7.3.2011. BAIL APPL. NO.6523 OF 2011 :: 2 :: The father of the victim is a real estate broker and a person who supplies junior artists to film makers. On 3-5-2010, the victim was taken by her father to a hotel at Panampilly Nagar, Ernakulam, stating that they had to meet ‘film people’. After leaving the victim in the room in the hotel, father of the victim left the place. The victim was raped by the man who was in the room. Thereafter, on that date and on the following days, she was taken to several places in and around Ernakulam city, Mysore, Ooty, Thiruvananthapuram, Kannur, Chalakkudy, Athirappilly, Munnar, Bangalore, Thrissur, Mapranam, Coimbatore etc. On 1-1-2011, the father of the victim took her to Coimbatore and entrusted her to a man and woman. They took the victim to a house where she was locked. She was subjected to forceful sex by twelve persons who visited the house. The victim escaped from that house and after reaching her native place, she disclosed the matters to her paternal uncle and other relatives. They advised the victim to inform the matter to the police. 4. The allegation against the petitioner is that in the first week of August, 2010, he procured the victim girl with the assistance of Sudheer (accused No.1) and took the girl to Pathanapuram. It is alleged that he sexually abused the girl along with Bijith (accused BAIL APPL. NO.6523 OF 2011 :: 3 :: No.154) and Jespal (accused No.156) at a residential house rented out by Noushad (accused No.160) for telefilm purposes. 5. The petitioner was arrested on 2.8.2011 and he was remanded to judicial custody on 3.8.2011. The investigation is in progress, as regards the petitioner. If bail is granted to the petitioner at this stage, it would adversely affect the proper and smooth investigation of the case. It is also likely that the petitioner may influence and intimidate the witnesses and tamper with the evidence. I am of the view that it is not proper to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/