IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2010 / 24TH POUSHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 89 of 2010() --------------------------- CRIME NO.714 OF 2009 OF KOILANDI POLICE STATION PETITIONER (S): ACCUSED -------------------------------------- ANAZ, S/O.AZEEZ, THAYULLATHIL HOUSE, NADERI AMSOM, KAVUMVATTOM DESOM, KOILANDI TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.PAVITHRAN SRI.JAYANANDAN MADAYI PUTHIYAVEETTIL SRI.K.NOORUDHEEN SRI.T.P.SAEED RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT --------------------------------------------- SHO, KOILANDI, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ----------------------------------- B.A.No.89 of 2010 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of January, 2010 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.714 of 2009 of Koyilandi Police Station. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 366A of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that on 4.12.2009, the petitioner induced the daughter of the de facto complainant, a minor girl, to go away with the petitioner. The girl was taken to Vadakara and Mahe. The allegation is that the petitioner had sexual contact with the girl. On 6.12.2009, the girl was brought back to Koyilandi and she was left near the police station. 4. The offence alleged against the petitioner is very serious in nature. 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the allegations levelled against the petitioner, I do not think that this is a fit case where anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. BA No.89/2010 2 Custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be required in the case. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. The petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl