IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 24TH KARTHIKA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 7338 of 2011 CRIME NO.638 OF 2007 OF PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION PETITIONER : ACCUSED NO.1: ------------------------------ SOUDA BEEVI AGED 48 YEARS, D/O.AISHA BEEVI, KOPLI VEEDU, KULASEKHARAPATHI,PATHANAMTHITTA P.O., KOZHENCHERY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.SETHUNATH RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT/STATE: --------------- 1. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER, DISTRICT SPECIAL BRANCH,KOLLAM 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.R.RANJITH THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/11/2011, ALONGWITH B.A.NO.8767 OF 2011, THE COURT ON 15/11/2011 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ Bail Appl. Nos.7338 & 8767 OF 2011 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 15th day of November, 2011 O R D E R Bail Application No.7338 of 2011 is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by Souda Beevi (accused No.1) and B.A. No. 8767 of 2011 is filed by Ahammad (accused No.2) in Crime No. 638 of 2007 of Pathanamthitta Police Station. Souda Beevi was arrested on 20.6.2011 and Ahammed was arrested on 25.5.2011. 2. The offences alleged in Crime No.638 of 2007 of Pathanamthitta Police Station are under Sections 120-B, 417, 420, 366, 342, 376 (2) (g) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 10 read with Section 24 (b) (f) (g) of the Immigration Act, 1983 and Section 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act. The allegations levelled against the accused are the following: The defacto complainant (victim) was provided with a visa by the first accused Souda Beevi and the 2nd accused Ahammed, to go to Sharjah on 19.7.2007. The de facto complainant was assured a job in a supermarket at Sharjah. On reaching Sharjah, the victim was BAIL APPL. NOS.7338 AND 8767 OF 2011 :: 2 :: illegally detained in a flat and she was compelled to have sexual relationship with several persons against her consent and will. The victim was beaten by Souda Beevi and Ahammed, when she resisted the sexual exploitation. The victim was taken to several flats in Dubai also. It is also alleged that the 2nd accused Ahammed also raped the victim. The accused persons presented the victim to several persons after receiving money from the ‘customers’. Some of the Keralites helped the victim to escape and seek refuge at the Indian Consulate in Dubai. The victim stayed at the shelter premises of the Consulate from 29th July 2007 to 12th August 2007. The victim was repatriated to Kochi on 13.8.2007. 3. The victim reported the matter at Pathanamthitta Police Station on 20.8.2007 and Crime No.638 of 2007 was registered. The Crime was investigated by the Circle Inspector of Police, Pathanamthitta. He filed a final report on 27.8.2009 before the Magistrate’s Court stating that the crime was undetected. 4. The victim filed W.P. (C) No.4748 of 2010 before the High Court complaining that the police did not investigate the case properly. Meanwhile, the Deputy Superintendent of Police filed a BAIL APPL. NOS.7338 AND 8767 OF 2011 :: 3 :: report before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Pathanamthitta and sought permission to conduct further investigation in the Crime. W.P. (C) No.4748 of 2010 was disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court directing the investigation of the Crime to be conducted by the Inspector General of Police, Thiruvananthapuram Range. The State was directed to render necessary support and assistance for the investigation. The Division Bench also held that the investigation will be monitored by the High Court. The Division Bench took note of the report submitted by the Inspector General of Police, Thiruvananthapuram range that none of the investigating officers did investigate the case satisfactorily. 5. The Inspector General of Police scrutinized the investigation and appropriate action was taken against the erring officers. The Circle Inspector of Police and two Sub Inspectors were placed under suspension and departmental enquiry was ordered against them. 6. As per the direction of the Division Bench, a special investigation team was constituted. After completing the investigation, charge sheet was filed in the case. BAIL APPL. NOS.7338 AND 8767 OF 2011 :: 4 :: 7. Souda Beevi came to India from abroad on 17-6-2011. She surrendered before police on 20.6.2011. She was arrested by the Special Investigation Team on 20.6.2011. It was revealed that the Passport of Souda Beevi was not genuine. It was found during investigation that Souda Beevi had obtained the passport in the year 1995 in a false name and address. The passport was obtained by her in the name of Sainaba Beevi Ahammed. It was revealed that the person in whose name the passport was taken, did not apply for any passport. Accordingly, Crime No. 398 of 2011 was registered at Pallickal Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram against Souda Beevi under Section 417, 419, 465, 468, 471, 474 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 10 (3) (c) read with 12 (b) of the Passport Act. Formal arrest of Souda Beevi was recorded in that case on 2.7.2011. 8. The Bail Applications filed by the accused were dismissed by a detailed order dated 17th August 2011 (reported in 2011 (4) KLT 52 = 2011 (3) KHC 795 = ILR 2011 (4) Kerala 79). BAIL APPL. NOS.7338 AND 8767 OF 2011 :: 5 :: 9. Sri.V.Sethunath and Sri.M.R.Rajesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the charge sheet having been filed, there is no reason why the petitioners should be detained further. It is submitted that continued detention of the petitioners would affect the fair trial of the case. It is submitted that the petitioners are prepared to abide by any condition that may be imposed by the court. 10. Sri.R.Ranjith and Sri.K.K.Rajeev, the learned Public Prosecutors vehemently opposed the Bail Applications. They submitted that if the petitioners are released on bail, they would intimidate, influence and terrorise the witnesses and the victim. It is submitted that even before Souda surrendered before the police, her son and his niece threatened the de facto complainant and Crime No.505 of 2011 was registered at Pathanamthitta Police Station against them. The learned Public Prosecutors invited my attention to paragraph 24 of the order dated 17th August 2011 in the Bail Applications referred to above. It reads thus: “It would appear that the accused are very rich and influential persons. They could influence the BAIL APPL. NOS.7338 AND 8767 OF 2011 :: 6 :: investigating agency to submit a final report before court stating that the crime was undetected. That the investigating officer did not act properly is clear from the report submitted by the Inspector General of Police, Thiruvananthapuram Range, which was accepted by the Division Bench in W.P. (C) No.4748 of 2010. Souda Beevi filed B.A. No.5717 of 2009 for anticipatory bail in which the first respondent was the Circle Inspector of Police, Pathanamthitta. The Circle Inspector of Police was the investigating officer who filed final report before Court stating that the offence could not be detected. Souda Beevi could get a fake passport in the name of another person in 1995. She used that passport and went abroad. Annexure 7 statement of the victim (produced by the petitioner in B.A.No.5198 of 2011) shows that a Municipal Councillor and certain others including the brother of Souda Beevi offered a huge amount to the victim to withdraw the case. The victim was also threatened by them.” 11. In spite of the fact that final report was filed in the case, I do not think that it is safe to release the petitioners on bail. If they are released on bail, there is every likelihood that they would flee from justice. It is stated that the accused are very influential and powerful. If they are released on bail, they are likely to intimidate BAIL APPL. NOS.7338 AND 8767 OF 2011 :: 7 :: and influence the victim and the witnesses, which would adversely affect a proper trial. The contention that if they are detained further, they would be denied of a fair trial, is unsustainable, in the facts and circumstances of the case. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Applications are dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/