IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 6TH MARCH 2008 / 16TH PHALGUNA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 1223 of 2008() ----------------------------- CR.NO. 331/07 OF PAYYOLI POLICE STATION AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN BA.53/2008 .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------ VINEESH, S/O. PREMAN, NEZHUKATTUTHARAPARAMBIL HOUSE, MELADI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.K.V.RESHMI RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT & STATE: --------------------------------- 1. S.I. OF POLICE, PAYYOLI POLICE STATION. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 3. SRILAKSHMI, D/O. BALAKRISHNAN, MADATHI THAZHEVEEDU, KIZHOOR, MELADY P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JAI GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 1223 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 6th day of March, 2008 O R D E R Second application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner faces allegations in a crime registered under Sections 366A and 376 I.P.C. The petitioner is alleged to have kidnapped a minor girl, below the age of 16 years and to have had sexual intercourse with her. Crime has been registered. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner has not been arrested so far. The petitioner had come to this Court earlier with an application for anticipatory bail and by order dt. 7.1.2008 in B.A. 53 of 2008 the said prayer was rejected. The petitioner has come to this Court again with the present application for anticipatory bail. 2. The learned Prosecutor opposes the application. He submits that the investigation does not reveal that any marriage had taken place between the victim and the petitioner. The alleged occurrence took place on 25.9.07. A certificate has been produced to show that the marriage had taken place on 27.9.2007. The learned Prosecutor stoutly disputes the case that B.A.No. 1223 of 2008 2 the marriage had taken place on 27.9.2007. No reliance can be placed on the marriage certificate that is now pressed into service. At any rate, there is no settlement between the petitioner and the defacto complainant or the members of her family. In these circumstances the petitioner may not be granted anticipatory bail. There is no reason to entertain and allow a fresh petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C., submits the learned Prosecutor. 3. I find merit in the opposition by the learned Prosecutor. The petitioner has a contention that he had entered into valid matrimony with the girl on 27.9.2007. The girl is admittedly aged below 16 years and in these circumstances her consent for sexual intercourse does become irrelevant. The contention that the petitioner had already got married to the girl cannot be accepted at the moment, in the facts and circumstances of the case. I am not, at any rate, satisfied that this second application for anticipatory bail deserves to be considered favourably. 4. This application is accordingly dismissed. (R. BASANT) tm Judge