IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 17TH MAY 2010 / 27TH VAISAKHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 2416 of 2010() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.200/2010 OF KALPETTA POLICE STATION) CMP.1120/2010 of C.J.M., KALEPETTA .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED --------------------------- C. SHIJU, S/O. CHANDRASEKHARAN PILLAI, AGED 30 YEARS, RESIDING AT OTTATHENGUVILA KIZHAKATH HOUSE, KOONIYIL NORTH, NEDUGOLAM POST, PARAVUR, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI. HARISH GOPINATH RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALPETTA POLICE STATION, KALPETTA, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. M.S. BREEZ. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------------- B.A. No. 2416 of 2010 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this 17th May, 2010. ORDER Petition for bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 376, 384, 392 and 506(ii) of the IPC. According to prosecution, petitioner got acquainted with de facto complainant from the road, while he approached the de facto complainant and helped her when her son fell down on the road. Thereafter, he started paying visit to her house and on one occasion he pushed her saree and took photo in a mobile phone. She was threatened on several occasions showing photo in the mobile phone stating that it will be published in Internet and she was blackmailed to deposit money in his account. She managed to deposit Rs.40,000/- in the accused's account in total, on several occasions. The acquaintance started in March, 2008 and in July, 2009 petitioner went to the de facto complainant's house and committed rape on her showing photographs in the mobile phone and threatening to publish. She was also forced to give gold ornaments also under threat. Petitioner also asked her to [B.A.No.2416/10] 2 deposit Rs.30,000/- more and he came to her house on 29.3.2010 to collect money. On that day also gold ornaments were taken away by him. He has taken 8 sovereigns of gold ornaments and Rs.40,000/- in total. Petitioner informed her husband about it and lodged a complaint on 31.3.2010. 3. Petitioner was arrested on 11.4.2010. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the allegations are absolutely false. Petitioner and de facto complainant's husband were working abroad and they were having some money transaction. De facto complainant's husband deposited the money borrowed from the petitioner on several occasions in small amounts, in the petitioner's bank account. It is highly improbable that petitioner use force against de facto complainant to deposit an amount of Rs.40,000/- in the petitioner's account, it is submitted. The acquaintance started from March, 2008 onwards as per the allegations in the F.I. Statement and even the incident on road is committed as early as in 2009 but complaint was lodged only on [B.A.No.2416/10] 3 31.10.2010. Petitioner is in custody for the past more than 45 days. 4. On hearing both sides and on gong through the case diary, I am satisfied that petitioner can be granted bail and the following order is passed: Petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Magistrate Court concerned on the following conditions: i) Petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer as and when directed. ii) Petitioner shall not intimidate or influence witnesses. Petition is allowed. Sd/- K. HEMA, JUDGE. Krs.