IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2011 / 18TH JYAISHTA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 1634 of 2011 ------------------------- CRMP.1364/2011 of SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.556/2011 OF KILIKOLLOOR POLICE STATION) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER : DEFACTO COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------- GINA, D/O. SREEDEVI AMMA, AGED 22 YEARS, GEETHU BHAVAN, KILIKOLLOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM. BY ADVS. SRI. K.SIJU KAMALASANAN SMT. BINDU GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE ---------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERAVIPURAM, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. RAJESH @ RATHEESH, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O. RAJENDRAN, KALLUVILA VEEDU, KALLUMTHAZHAM P.O., KOLLAM. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. MANU THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: smvd THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.1634 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of June, 2011. ORDER Petitioner is the defacto complainant in Crime No.556 of 2011 of Kilikollur Police Station for offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. Case is registered against the second respondent on the complaint of defacto complainant. Allegation is that between June 2009 and May 2011 the second respondent on a false promise of marrying petitioner obtained her consent for sexual intercourse and subjected her to such act. Later, he refused to comply with his offer. The second respondent was arrested 19.05.2011 and released on 26.05.2011 as per Annexure-3, order on Crl.M.P.No.1364 of 2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kollam. Petitioner seeks cancellation of that order. Petitioners contends that learned Sessions Judge has passed a cryptic order without referring to the nature of the case and without complying with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in various decisions relating to grant of bail in serious offences. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor also. 2. Learned Sessions Judge though not in detail has stated that he has taken into account the age of petitioner at the time of alleged incident, the stage of investigation and liberty of second respondent. The latter was in custody from 19.05.2011 till 26.05.2011. It is pertinent to note that the Investigating Crl.MC No.1634/2011 2 Officer has not come up with a request to cancel the bail for the reason that grant of bail affected investigation of the case. Grievance of petitioner is that by a cryptic order learned Sessions Judge has granted bail . I stated that though not in detail learned Sessions Judge has referred to relevant aspects of the matter and granted bail to the petitioner. Learned Sessions Judge has exercised the discretion to grant bail having regard to various aspects which are relevant for consideration. I do not find reason to interfere and cancel bail. Nor is there any other circumstance which require cancellation of bail. Hence the request cannot be allowed. Criminal Miscellaneous Case is dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks