IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2010 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 1879 of 2010() ----------------------------------- CMP.1377/2010 of J.M.F.C.-I, MAVELIKKARA CRIME NO. 131/2010 OF MAVELIKKARA POLICE STATION .............. PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ---------------------------- MADHU, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.MADANAPPAN, MANNALIL THEKKETHIL, ARUNOOTIMANGALAM MURI, VETTIYAR. BY ADV. SRI.R.SUNIL KUMAR SMT.A.SALINI LAL RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY EXCISE INSPECTOR, KARTHIKAPPALLY RANGE. BY SRI. V. TEKCHAND PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 1879 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 30th day of March, 2010 O R D E R This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No. 131/2010 of Mavelikkara Police Station, Alappuzha. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 376 and 450 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is the following: The petitioner is a neighbour of the victim. The victim is aged 17 years. She is studying for plus one course. She resides with mother and younger brother. Her father is working in United States of America. On 1/3/2010 during midnight, they heard the goat's cry. The mother of the victim put on lights and went out of the house to see what happened. The victim did not go out. At midnight, the accused caught hold of her and committed rape. She was silenced by putting cloth in her mouth. The petitioner had gained access to the house when the mother of the petitioner went out of the house to see why the goats were B.A. No. 1879 /2010 2 making noise. It is alleged that the petitioner told her that her parents would not give her in marriage to the petitioner and unless she was impregnated, his desire to marry her would not fructify. After the cloth was removed from her mouth, she cried aloud. Her mother came to the scene. It is alleged that the petitioner told her mother that the victim would require mangoes after a few months, indicating indirectly that the victim would become pregnant. The victim was put to the fear of death while committing the offence and thereafter. 4. The petitioner was arrested on 4/3/2010 and he was remanded to judicial custody. The investigation is not completed. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner is involved in three other cases, two of which relate to the offence under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code, while other one is a murder case. 6. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the criminal antecedents of the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. If the petitioner is released on bail, it would B.A. No. 1879 /2010 3 adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm