IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2010 / 20TH JYAISTHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3050 of 2010() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.225/2010 OF MUKKOM POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE) PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- ABDUL SALEEM P., AGED 34, S/O. KHALID, POYILIL, NELLIKKAPARAMBU P.O., MUKKOM VIA, KOZHIKODE DIST. BY ADV. SRI.P.A.MOHAMMED SHAH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MUKKOM POLICE STATION, MUKKOM, KOZHIKODE DIST. 2. STATE OF KRALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. M.S. BREEZ. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------------- B.A. No.3050 of 2010 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this 10th day of June, 2010. ORDER Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioner and de facto complainant were acquainted with each other and on the promise to marry she was raped by petitioner on several times. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that this complaint is filed for blackmailing petitioner. He has not committed any offence as alleged. Even according to first information statement, de facto complainant had sexual intercourse with petitioner with consent, and only because her parents came to know about it and they allegedly saw petitioner, when she opened the door that a complaint was filed. According to her, she came to know from the people of the locality that petitioner is married and having children. No rape is involved, since, according to the admissions made by de facto complainant, there [B.A.No.3050/2010] 2 was sex with consent, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that considering the serious nature of allegations made in the case diary, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. 5. On hearing both sides and on going through the case diary, I am satisfied that there are serious allegations against petitioner. He is having wife and two children and he is alleged to have sexual relationship with de facto complainant on several occasions. This is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. 6. However, I make it clear that that considerations for bail under Section 437 Cr.P.C. are different from considerations for bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C Petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Krs.