IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 30TH JULY 2009 / 8TH SRAVANA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 4160 of 2009 CRIME NO.302 OF 2009 OF THE KUNDARA POLICE STATION CRMP.1743/2009 OF SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 ------------------------------------------- SUBIN LUKOSE, S/O. LUKOSE, AGED 21 YEARS KOIVILA VIPIN BHAVANAM, KALLINGAL, PERUMPUZHA.P.O. ELAMPALLOR. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.RAJA SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 4160 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 30th July, 2009 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.2 in Crime No.302 of 2009 of Kundara Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 344, 365, 366, 376, 383, 427 and 506(i) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. I have perused the case diary carefully. The case diary reveals the sad plight of a girl who wished to join the course of Aeronautical Engineering and how she landed in trouble at the instance of the accused persons. She could not study. She was subjected to rape on several times at several places and she even attempted to commit suicide. The case diary reveals as to how the life of a young girl could be ruined by persons like the accused. This is not an incident of rape where a man commits rape on sudden impulse. This is a case where calculated attempts were made and a girl was trapped. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the only allegation made against the B.A. NO. 4160 OF 2009 :: 2 :: second accused is that he made a phone call to the victim. I have perused that part of the statement of the victim as well. It is not as simple as the learned counsel attempts to explain. Prima facie, it discloses the guilty intention on the part of the second accused as well. 4. For the aforesaid reasons, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 5. It is made clear that the observations in paragraph 3 of this order are intended only for the disposal of the Bail Application. The observations are based only on the allegations made against the accused persons. The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/