IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 4TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 13TH BHADRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 5216 of 2008(F) -------------------------------------- CRIME NO.356/2007 OF ANCHAL POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ ACCUSED : ------------------------------ SANTHOSH KUMAR.S, LATHIKA VILASOM, THUDAYANNUR.P.O, ITTIVA VILLAGE, KOTTARAKARA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI RESPONDENT : ----------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------ B.A. No.5216 OF 2008 ------------------------------ Dated this the 4th day of September, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Section 376 IPC. According to the prosecution, the petitioner allegedly committed rape on the defacto complainant on 26.09.2007. She gave a complaint to the Superintendent of Police (Women Cell) on 24.10.2007, based on which the present crime is registered. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a police constable and the defacto complainant is a guest lecturer and they got acquainted with each other. They belonged to different castes and they fell in love with each other. The defacto complainant was under the impression that the petitioner may not marry her and hence she lodged a complaint against petitioner before the Women Cell alleging rape. Thereafter, the petitioner and the defacto complainant got married on 03.02.2008. A statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded from the defacto complainant on 20.02.2008. It is produced as Annexure B. It is specifically stated in the said statement that the B.A.5216/08 2 petitioner had not committed any rape on her but she gave a complaint only because she believed that he may not marry her, but they are living together as husband and wife in his house happily from 03.02.2008 onwards, since their marriage. She happened to give a complaint only because of the peculiar mental state at the time of lodging the complaint since she thought he would not marry her. 4. It is also submitted that the parties lived together as husband and wife for 2 months but thereafter she left the petitioner and lodged complaint alleging the offence under Section 498A of IPC and an anticipatory bail application was filed by the petitioner. As per Order dated 11.06.2008 in B.A.No.3742 of 2008 (Annexure E), the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail by this Court. In the light of the marital strain, now existing between the parties, the defacto complainant is proceeding with the crime registered under Section 376 IPC, and hence the petitioner is apprehending arrest. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that in the light of the statement given by the defacto complainant, under Section 164 Cr.P.C., he has no objection in granting anticipatory bail, but B.A.5216/08 3 conditions may be imposed. In the result, the following order is passed: The petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within 7 days from today and in case of arrest, if any, he shall be released on bail on his executing bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for like sum to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer on the following conditions: 1. Petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation as and when directed by the Investigating Officer. 2. Petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation. 3. Petitioner shall not intimidate any witness or tamper with evidence or commit any offence while on bail. The petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE pac