IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 21ST APRIL 2009 / 1ST VAISAKHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 2120 of 2009() --------------------------------- (CRIME NO.402/08 OF ELATHUR POLICE STATION) APPLICANT/ACCUSED NO.9 ------------------------------- DR. K.LOKESHAN NAIR, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O. NARAYANAN NAIR, BONE AND JOINT HOSPITAL,KACHE RY AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE-6. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SMT.P.MAYA RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT --------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING THE S.I. OF POLICE, ELATHUR POLICE STATION. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M. KAMMAPPU THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. --------------------------------------- B.A. No.2120 OF 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of April, 2009 O R D E R The petitioner who is the ninth accused in Crime No.402/2008 of Elathur Police Station, which is registered for the offences punishable under Sections 366(A), 376(g), 372 and 373 of I.P.C., seeks anticipatory bail. 2. The prosecution allegation is that the fourth accused in this case used a minor girl for prostitution by keeping her in the house of the fourth accused and also to some other persons for the last one year. The further allegation is that during such period, the fourth accused presented the said minor girl for sexual intercourse with accused Nos. 1 to 3. The allegation against the petitioner herein is that he approached the fourth accused and asked her to took the victim to the hospital, where the petitioner is working and accordingly, the fourth accused took the girl to the hospital and thereupon, the petitioner committed rape on the girl. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner B.A.No.2120 of 2009 2 as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner being a medical practitioner, used to treat many people in the hospital and probably the girl might have seen the petitioner and due to mistaken identity, the name of the petitioner is shown as an accused. It is also submitted that the investigation is practically over and the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary. The learned Public Prosecutor stoutly opposed the prayer in the petition for pre-arrest bail. 5. I have carefully considered the contentions advanced by the counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. Though the petitioner is a medical practitioner, he is involved in a heinous crime and the specific allegation against the petitioner is that he had committed rape on a minor girl provided by the fourth accused. I myself restrained from discussing and entering into the merits of the contentions advanced as it is likely to adversely affect either the prosecution or the defence. Considering the entire facts and circumstances in the case, I am of the view that it is not a fit B.A.No.2120 of 2009 3 case to grant the relief as sought for by the petitioner for pre-arrest bail. In the result, there is no merit in the petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. V.K.MOHANAN JUDGE pac