IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2010 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 2105 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.547/09 OF KOVALAM POLICE STATION PETITIONER (S): -------------------- MADHU MADANAKUMAR, S/O. MADHU, NEELIMA HOUSE, MUTTAYKKADU, THERIVILA, KOVALAM.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.P.SHINOD SRI.RAM MOHAN.G. RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT STATE AND INVESTIGATING OFFICER ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOVALAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEK CHAND. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ---------------------------------------------- Bail Application No.2105 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 27th May, 2010. O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 376 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioner promised the defacto complainant to effect sale of her motor cycle. In connection with this, he wanted the defacto complainant to go to his house and when she went there on 18.6.2009, he committed rape on her. On 22.6.2009 also, the same thing was repeated and she became pregnant. The sale was not effected. After the incident, sale was effected by petitioner, but he did not hand over the documents relating to sale to defacto complainant and misappropriated the sale consideration also. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is aged 27 years and the defacto complainant is aged about 40 years. The incident allegedly happened on 18.6.2009 and the complaint was given only on 26.11.2009 and there is long delay. It is not correct to say that sale did not take place, BA NO.2105/10 2 but the sale was effected on 24.7.2009. The defacto complainant's attempt is to extract more money from petitioner and for this purpose, this false complaint is filed, it is submitted. 4. This petition is strongly opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioner has committed the offences. The sale was effected only after the incident. Petitioner is required for interrogation and recovery of materials. 5. On hearing both sides and considering the nature of allegations made and the nature of investigation required, I am satisfied that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioner's interrogation will be needed for the purpose of an effective investigation. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. tgs