IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 2ND JULY 2010 / 11TH ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 2692 of 2010() ------------------------------------------ CRIME NO.197/2009 OF KELAKAM POLICE STATION. ....... PETITIONER (S): ACCUSED --------------------------- NISHANTH JOSEPH, S/O.LATE JOSEPH, AGED 24 YEARS, BUS CONDUCTOR, MATTATHIL HOUSE, KOTTIYOOR P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.CIBI THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT/STATE: ------------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KELAKAM POLICE STATION. 2. STATE REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 2692 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 2nd day of July, 2010 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 452, 506(i) and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioner committed house trespass into the house of the de facto complainant and committed rape on her on 06.09.2009 at about 10 A.M. The parents of petitioner intervened the matter and petitioner agree to marry de facto complainant. Later he backed out from the promise and de facto complainant filed a complaint. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is working as a conductor and his marriage was fixed. De facto complainant's parents and others came to the house of the de facto complainant and assaulted petitioner's mother and other inmates of the house. A complaint was lodged before the police and a crime was registered in respect of the said incident which happened on 29.09.2009. Thereafter, on 02.10.2009, a complaint is filed alleging that petitioner committed rape etc. B.A. No. 2692 / 2010 2 Petitioner is absolutely innocent of the allegations made, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed, since the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code is involved. Petitioner had filed application for anticipatory bail also and it was dismissed as per order dated 25.03.2010 in B.A. no. 7238/2009 by another bench of this court. This is the second application for anticipatory bail. 5. On hearing both sides, and on going through the order passed in earlier application for anticipatory bail, I find that the following observations are made in the said order. “Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case including the fact that grave offences are involved, anticipatory bail cannot be granted to the petitioner. There is no reason why he should not approach the Magistrate concerned and seek regular bail after his arrest.” 6. I do not find any reason to come to a different finding in a case of this nature. There is no reason to interfere the mater. Though the petitioner would content that de facto complainant's B.A. No. 2692 / 2010 3 parents and others had gone to his house and assaulted petitioner's mother etc, it is not stated what provoked them to go his house and act in the manner alleged. As observed in the earlier order, there is no reason why petitioner shall not approach the Magistrate concerned and seek regular bail after his arrest. No further application for anticipatory bail by petitioner will be entertained by this court in this crime. This petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE ln