IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 21ST JULY 2008 / 30TH ASHADHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 4237 of 2008() ----------------------------- CMP.1540/2008 of J.M.F.C.-II, ERNAKULAM (CRIME NO. 454/08 OF KADAVANTHRA POLICE STATION) ACCUSED NO.1: ------------------------------ SANTOSH MADHAVAN @ AMRUTHA CHAITHANAYA 4B, FLAT ROAYAL STADIUM, KADAVANTHRA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR (SR.) SRI.PRADEESH CHACKO SRI.A.RAJASIMHAN RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANTS: -------------------------- 1. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PUBLIC PROSECUTION SRI. P.G. THAMPI BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.K. SURESH THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------------- Bail Appl.No.4237 of 2008 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of July, 2008. ORDER This petition is for bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 342, 366A, 376 and 343 of Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, the de facto complainant belongs to a financially poor family and she joined the hostel run by petitioner while she was studying in Xth standard and she persuaded her studies. The entire expenses were met by petitioner. 3. Later, on 15.1.2006, the de facto complainant was taken to the residential flat of the petitioner by the 2nd accused stating the petitioner had asked him to arrange tuition for her. The victim was only aged 15 years at that time. On reaching the flat, she was wrongfully confined in the bedroom and she was raped by the petitioner. She was raped on several other occasions also by the petitioner from the same flat. She was asked by petitioner not to disclose the same to anybody. She also felt that it would not be in the interest of her family to divulge the details to anybody since the petitioner is highly influential and rich. [B.A.No.4237/08] 2 4. In 2006, she had gone for a retreat in a Church and she disclosed the incident to the counsellor. He advised her that if she made any issue about the incident or lodged a complaint, it would only cause damage to herself. He consoled her stating that God would punish him appropriately. Later, it is only when news came in the media that she gained the courage to give the complaint. A complaint was lodged by her on 18.5.2008 and a crime was registered. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that the charge has been filed in this case and hence the petitioner may not be required for the purpose of investigation and his further detention is absolutely unnecessary. It is also submitted that he was falsely implicated at the instance of certain people who fabricated a false case through the de facto complainant only with a view to damage the reputation of the petitioner. There is inordinate delay in filing the complaint and the omission to divulge the facts to any person for a long period of two years itself would indicate that a false case is fabricated at a highly belated stage and hence the petitioner may not be detained at the instance of such unscrupulous persons, it is submitted. 6. This petition is strongly opposed. It is submitted by learned Director General of Prosecution that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, release of the petitioner may result in great injustice not only to the victim, but also to the public at large. [B.A.No.4237/08] 3 The petitioner is involved in various crimes and in many other crimes, investigation is not complete. The de facto complainant is not the sole victim, but other minors are also raped by petitioner and in case he is released on bail, it is likely that the evidence so collected will be destroyed, witnesses will be influenced or intimidated. The nature of crime committed by the petitioner is shocking to any right thinking person in the society and if petitioner is released on bail, by his strong influence, he can tamper with evidence and also destroy the evidence very easily. 7. It is also submitted that petitioner could not be arrested despite all the steps taken by even the Interpol, which effected publication that the petitioner is a “wanted criminal” and warrant was also issued against the petitioner in connection with a complaint lodged against him, alleging cheating by a non-resident Indian lady about five years back in 2003. various other crimes committed by the petitioner were also brought to light only after he was arrested in 2008 and questioned in police custody, since nobody in India dared to make any complaint against him. Therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the State is forced to request this Court not to release the petitioner on bail, taking into consideration all the above facts. 8. On hearing both sides, keeping in mind the peculiar facts and circumstances under which petitioner was arrested and several [B.A.No.4237/08] 4 crimes were registered against the petitioner also and various other facts brought to notice of this Court, I am of the view that it may not be just and proper in th interest of justice to release the petitioner on bail at this stage. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE Krs.