IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 25TH AUGUST 2008 / 3RD BHADRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 4827 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.592/08 OF KALADY POLICE STATION PETITIONER ----------------- SANAL KUMAR, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O.M.S.SUSEELAN, MUKKUDIKATTIL HOUSE, M.H.COLONY, KALADY P.O. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.JAYAKUMAR SMT.E.SHEENA RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY S.I. OF POLICE, KALADY POLICE STATION, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 4827 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th August, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 366A and 376 of Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, a girl, aged 16 years, was kidnapped from her guardian and rape was committed on her on two occasions by the petitioner. On a complaint filed by the father of the girl, a case was registered under the caption, 'woman missing'. Later, the girl, along with her father, went to the police station and gave a statement revealing the offence. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner and the alleged victim were in love with each other and on 30.6.2008, the girl wanted the petitioner to take her from her house and it was under her compulsion that she was taken. She was asked by the teacher to bring parents for permitting her to enter the class, since she was absent in the previous hour and hence, she requested the petitioner to take her away, failing which, she threatened to commit suicide. It was under such circumstance that she was taken, it is submitted. 2 4. Learned counsel for petitioner brought to my notice that at the time when the girl was produced before the learned Magistrate, she stated that she had gone with the petitioner on her own accord and that she had no complaint against the petitioner. She also wrote letters which would show that the girl was not seduced by the petitioner and those letters are produced as Annexures A1 to A3. 5. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the case diary reveals a case of a minor who was taken away by the petitioner and rape was also committed on her, as disclosed from the statement given by the victim herself. It is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, it is submitted. 6. On considering all the facts stated above, I find that in a case of this nature, it may not be proper to grant anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner is prepared to surrender before the learned Magistrate and apply for bail. It is needless to say, consideration for granting bail and anticipatory bail under Section 437 are different. With these observations, this petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.