IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 26TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 4TH ASWINA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 4182 of 2008() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.111/2008 OF MURIKKASSERY POLICE STATION) PETITIONER/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------- JAFFAR, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.SIDDIQUE, KANJAMADAKKAL HOUSE, THOPRAMKUDI P.O. BY ADV. SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM SRI.S.DILEEP (KALLAR) RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, IDUKKI POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. (INVESTIGATING OFFICER IN CRIME NO.111/08 OF MURIKKASSERY POLICE STATION). PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. M.S. BREEZ. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------------- Bail Appl.No. 4182 of 2008 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of September, 2008. ORDER Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Section 376 of IPC. According to prosecution, the petitioner committed rape of de facto complainant on 1.1.2006. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a complaint was lodged only after two years though the alleged incident occurred on 1.1.2006. As per the allegations in the complaint, the petitioner persuaded the de facto complainant to have sexual intercourse on promise to marry her. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is absolutely innocent of the allegations made. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that Petitioner was in love with de facto complainant, but later petitioner decided to marry another lady and, on knowing this, de facto complainant attempted to commit suicide and hence on the complaint lodged by her a crime was registered against the petitioner under section 376 of IPC. It was also submitted by him that learned [B.A.No.4182/08] 2 counsel for the petitioner had submitted that an affidavit was sworn in by the de facto complainant clarifying her stand and hence, offence under Section 376 is not involved etc. In the above circumstances, the matter was referred to Lok Adalat to verify the veracity of the affidavit and also to consider whether the matter could be settled. But the dispute could not be settled there. In the nature of the allegations made, it may not be proper to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that de facto complainant stated before Lok Adalath that she was persuaded to sworn in an affidavit since she was told that it was necessary for getting bail for the petitioner. But she also made it clear that offence was committed and she had not condoned the offence, especially since se was not willing to marry her. 6. On hearing both sides, I find that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Krs.