IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2009 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 3088 of 2009() ------------------------------------- CRIME NO.294/2007 OF KOTTARAKARA POLICE STATION. PETITIONER/ ACCUSED: -------------------------------------- BAIJU PAPPACHAN @ BAIJU, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.PAPPACHAN, PALLILIKISHAKKATHIL VEEDU, MYLOM THEKKEKARA MURI, MYLOM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.P.HARIDAS RESPONDENTS/ STATE AND COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE DEPUTY POLICE SUPERINTENDENT, CRIME DEPARTMENT, KOTTARAKARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM. SRI. M.S BREEZ, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No.3088 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 17th day of June, 2009 O R D E R This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.294/2007 of Kottarakkara Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 306 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(xii) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 3. The victim was an inmate in a convent, she committed suicide. Long before, she was under the care and protection of her paternal uncle. Because of poverty, they had left the girl in the convent. It is stated that she developed intimacy with the accused, who was working as a driver in the convent. It is alleged that he promised to marry her and had sexual relationship with her. Later, the petitioner refused to marry her. They belong to different B.A. No.3088 /2009 2 religions. The petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste. She committed suicide on 14/04/2007. In her diary, she had made a note that she was committing suicide on account of conduct on the part of the accused. Handwriting in the diary was compared by the Forensic laboratory and in the report submitted in April, 2009, it is stated that the handwriting in question is similar to the handwriting of the victim found in other records. The petitioner was arrested on 27/05/2009, after receipt of the report from the Forensic Laboratory. He is in judicial custody. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no material to connect the petitioner with the offence and that even going by the materials collected, Section 376 is not attracted. It is not necessary to consider this contention put forward by the petitioner since any finding or observation in the order in the Bail Application would cause prejudice either to the prosecution or to the accused. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that if the petitioner is released on bail at this stage, there is every B.A. No.3088 /2009 3 likelihood of the petitioner influencing or intimidating the witnesses and that there is also a chance of the accused making himself scarce. Investigation is not over. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm