IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2008 / 14TH POUSHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 7666 of 2007() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.162/07 OF PERAMANGALAM POLICE STATION PETITIONER --------------------------- SPINNY V.S., S/O SREENIVASAN, AGED 20 YEARS, RESIDING AT VADASSERY HOUSE, P.O.KOONAMICHI, PANNISSERY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMACHANDRAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. 2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PERAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, PERAMANGALAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MANNUTHI POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY P.P. SRI. S.U. NAZAR. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- B.A. No. 7666 OF 2007 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of January, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner is the 1st accused. Altogether, there are two accused persons. The crux of the allegations is that the petitioner had voluntary sexual intercourse with the de facto complainant with the promise that he will marry her. The promise to marry was not abided by. It is further alleged that the petitioner facilitated sexual intercourse between the de facto complainant and the 2nd second accused – a friend of his. The petitioner and the de facto complainant had allegedly taken a premises on rent and had resided there for a short period of time claiming to be husband and wife. A crime has been registered. The 2nd accused has been arrested and later released on bail. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. B.A. No. 7666 OF 2007 -: 2 :- 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations do not inspire confidence at all. The petitioner is a 20 year old person. The 2nd accused is also a very young person. The de facto complainant is a woman aged about 18 years. Even going by the case of the prosecution, she is beyond the age of consent and even allegedly the sexual intercourse between the de facto complainant and both the accused have been sexual intercourses with consent. A consideration of the allegations raised must create doubt as to whether the de facto complainant had agreed to marry the petitioner or the 2nd accused. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in these circumstances, prays that anticipatory bail may be granted to the petitioner. 3. In the nature of the contentions raised, the Case Diary was directed to be placed before me. I have perused the same. I shall not, at this early stage of the investigation, embark on any detailed discussions on the acceptability of the allegations or the probability and improbability of the defence version urged. Suffice it to say that my attention has been drawn to the statement of the father of the de facto complainant. I have also seen the admitted conduct of the de facto complainant residing with the petitioner for some length of time taking the premises jointly by giving false and fake names to the landlord. I have taken note of the statement of the girl that she had gone with the B.A. No. 7666 OF 2007 -: 3 :- petitioner herein on trips to various hill stations. I do also take note of the statements of the witnesses which show that the 2nd accused and the de facto complainant had represented to others that they were intending to get married to each other. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor does not oppose the application and on an anxious consideration of the indications available in the Case Diary, I am satisfied that this is a fit case where directions under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C. can be issued in favour of the petitioner herein subject, of course, to appropriate conditions which shall ensure the interests of a fair, efficient and expeditious investigation. 5. In the result, this petition is allowed. Following directions are issued under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C: (i) The petitioner shall appear before the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction at 11 a.m. on 14/1/08. He shall be released on regular bail on his executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate. (ii) The petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. on 15/1/08, 16/1/08 and 17/1/08. During this period the Investigator shall be at liberty to interrogate the petitioner in B.A. No. 7666 OF 2007 -: 4 :- custody and take all necessary steps for the proper conduct of the investigation, including the examination of the accused by the Medical Officer to get the potency test conducted. Thereafter on all Mondays and Fridays between 10 a.m. and 12 noon for a period of two months. Subsequently, he shall so make himself available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer as and when directed by the Investigating Officer in writing to do so. (iii) If the petitioner does not appear before the learned Magistrate as directed in clause (i), directions issued above shall thereafter stand revoked and the police shall be at liberty to arrest the petitioner and deal with him in accordance with law as if these directions were not issued at all; (iv) If the petitioner were arrested prior to his surrender on 14/1/08 as directed in clause (i) above, he shall be released on his executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- without any sureties undertaking to appear before the learned Magistrate on 14/1/08. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge