IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 21ST JULY 2008 / 30TH ASHADHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 4236 of 2008() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.456/2008 OF KADAVANTHRA POLICE STATION, ERNAKUKLAM PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1: ------------------------------ SANTOSH MADHAVAN @ AMRUTHA CHAITHANAYA 4B, FLAT ROAYAL STADIUM, KADAVANTHRA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR (SR.) SRI.PRADEESH CHACKO SRI.A.RAJASIMHAN RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANTS: -------------------------- 1. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION SRI. P.G. THAMPI BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.K. SURESH THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------------- Bail Appl.No. 4236 of 2008 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of July, 2008. ORDER Petition for bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 366, 342, 376 and 34 of Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, the petitioner promised to arrange a job for the de facto complainant abroad, he paid the charges for visa and also made arrangements to get passport. One day in February 2006, she was taken to petitioner's flat by his driver and wrongfully confined in a room. On the next day, she was raped from his residential flat. She was procured for that purpose by driver of the petitioner. She was 22 years at that time. She was threatened by petitioner and her photographs were taken and she was asked not to divulge about anything to others. Fearing damage to herself and her also, who was subjected to rape by petitioner she kept quite. Later, on seeing reports in T.V. and media she took courage to lodge a complaint on 18.5.2006. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is inordinate delay in lodging the complaint. The incident occurred in [B.A.No.4236/08] 2 2006, but the complaint was lodged only in 2008. She did not disclose about alleged rape to any person for a considerably long period. The de facto complainant is only a planted victim through who a first information statement was fabricated by persons who are motivated against the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody from 13.5.2008 onwards, though the arrest in this case was recorded subsequently. Hence, the petitioner may be released on bail, it is submitted. 4. Learned Director General of Prosecution vehemently opposed this bail application. It is submitted that the offence was committed, exploiting the poor financial condition of the victim. Petitioner also threatened the de facto complainant stating that video cassettes were taken etc. The de facto complainant is not the only victim but there are other similar cases registered against the petitioner. The petitioner is a highly influential person who could evade arrest and legal proceedings for a period of more than 5 years, even though a complaint was lodged against the petitioner as early as in 2003, by a non-resident Indian lady alleging offence of cheating against him. The Interpol published the petitioner's photo as “anted criminal” and non-bailable warrant was issued against. Even though the petitioner was very much available in the State and he was making his appearance in public, he was not arrested, until he was taken into custody by the police on 13.5.2008. Nobody in India dated [B.A.No.4236/08] 3 to file any complaint against the petitioner because of his strong influence and threat. Various video cassettes were recovered in pursuance of the confession statement made by the petitioner from the locker of a bank, as produced by him, which contained his sexual activities on the victim including minors. In case he is released on bail he will influence the witnesses, tamper with evidence and threaten witnesses and it will adversely affect the investigation, it is submitted. 5.On hearing both sides and on going through the case diary, I am satisfied that the case diary contains sufficient incriminating materials against the petitioner and investigation has to continue further. At this stage of investigation, if the petitioner is released it will adversely affect investigation, since he is likely to tamper with evidence and influence or threaten witnesses. Petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Krs.