IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2009 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 6953 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.729/09 OF MUNNAR POLICE STATION PETITIONER (S): 2ND ACCUSED ------------------------------- MUNIYANDI, S/O. CHOLLAMADAN, AGED 60 YEARS, H. NO. 17/922, IKKA NAGAR, MUNNAR COLONY.P.O. BY ADV. SRI.N.M.VARGHESE SRI.ROY THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MUNNAR, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MUNNAR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.6953 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2009 ORDER This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.2 in Crime No.729 of 2009 of Munnar Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Section 120B and Section 511 of 376 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The gist of the prosecution case is the following: The de facto complainant is a girl aged 19 years. She is studying for Teachers Training Course. Her father, the first accused, and the second accused conspired together and the girl was taken to Thiruvananthapuram. The first accused and the de facto complainant stayed in a lodge. The second accused stayed in another lodge. The de facto complainant was told that the second accused will make arrangements for getting a job for the de facto complainant. The girl was taken to the room in which the second accused was staying. He attempted to commit the BA No.6953/2009 2 offence under Section 376 IPC. The girl did not yield. Later, she was taken to the room in which the father was staying. It is alleged that the father also attempted to commit rape on her. It is also alleged that on earlier occasions also, the father had made such attempts. The girl reported the matter to the police. Accordingly, the crime was registered. The petitioner was arrested on 11.11.2009 and he was remanded to judicial custody. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even if all the averments in the First Information Statement are taken as true, the maximum that is made out is an offence under Section 354 IPC. The counsel also raised a question of identity of the accused. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there is no dispute regarding the identity. The petitioner was duly identified in accordance with law. As regards the contention on the merits, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that at this stage, the question may not be relevant as an offence under Section 120(B) is also alleged. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the third accused who is described as “Madam” and who is alleged to have compelled the BA No.6953/2009 3 girl to yield to the wishes of the second accused was not arrested. It is submitted that if the petitioner is released on bail, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. 6. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the duration of the judicial custody undergone by the petitioner, the nature of the offence and the present stage of investigation, I am of the view that bail can be granted to the petitioner on stringent conditions. The petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Devikulam, subject to the following conditions: a) The petitioner shall report before the investigating officer between 9 A.M. and 11 A.M. on all Mondays, till the final report is filed or until further orders; b) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; c) The petitioner shall not enter into the limits of Munnar Police Station for a period of three months except for complying with conditions (a) and (b). d) The petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence; e) The petitioner shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail; BA No.6953/2009 4 f) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled. The Bail Application is allowed as above. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl