IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 26TH OCTOBER 2009 / 4TH KARTHIKA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 6114 of 2009() ----------------------------------- CRIME NO. 244/2009 OF WADAKKANCHERRY POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------- K.C.HAMSA, S/O.KONDAZHIPLACKAL HAMSA, AGED 59 YEARS, RESIDING AT KOKKURKUNDU DESOM, MULLURKKARA VILLAGE, TALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.AHZAR RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, WADAKKANCHERRY POLICE STATION. BY SRI. M.S.BREEZ PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 6114 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 26th day of October, 2009 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.244/2009 of Wadakkancherry Police Station. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that on 13.04.2009, the accused called the defacto complainant's daughter to the nearby compound and committed the offence. The victim is a mentally retarded women aged 39 years. The first information was laid by the mother of the victim. The victim was taken to the hospital on the same day and he was examined by the Medical Officer. The matter was reported to the police on the same day. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the defacto complainant is in the habit of making such B.A. No. 6114 of 2009 2 allegations against others as well. It is also stated that there was a dispute between the defacto complainant and the petitioner. 5. At this stage, the court need not consider the defence put forward by the accused. It is also not proper to take a decision finally on such questions since it may cause prejudice to the parties. The victim is a mentally retarded women. In the facts and circumstances of the case, prima facie, it cannot be said that there are no materials to connect the petitioner with the offence. 6. If the petitioner is granted Anticipatory Bail, it would affect the smooth and proper investigation of the case. I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. For the aforesaid reasons, the bail application is dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE ln