IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND NOVEMBER 2011 / 11TH KARTHIKA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 6503 of 2011() ----------------------------- Crime No.1074 of 2010 of Medical College Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District. PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- M.R.NAJEEM, S/O.A.K.MUHAMMED RAFEEK, SHAMEEMA MANZIL, KIZHAKKUM BHAGOM, CHITHARA P.O., KADAKKAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI. K.SIJU SMT.BINDU GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY P.P.SRI.K.K.RAJEEV THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 2/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------- B.A.No.6503 OF 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of November, 2011 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.1074 of 2010 of Medical College Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. When the Bail Application came up for admission on 19th October, 2011, the following order was passed: “3.The prosecution case is that on 24.7.2010, the accused came to the house of the defacto complainant, and after locking the doors the defacto complainant was raped. In the First Information Statement itself there is mention of money transaction between the defacto complainant and the petitioner. The defacto complainant is aged 42 years. The defacto complainant filed a petition before the B.A.No. 6503 OF 2011 2 Police only on 22.11.2010. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are totally false. The defacto complainant was having good relationship with the petitioner and they had monetary transactions. The learned counsel for the petitioner also pointed out that the petition was filed by the defacto complainant before the police alleging a grave offence only to blackmail the petitioner and to extract money from him. It is pointed out that in 2007, the defacto complainant filed Annexure-1 complaint before the court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Kottarakkara against another young man alleging the offence of rape. Annexure-1 complaint was forwarded to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After investigation, Annexure-3 report was submitted on 13.8.2007 stating that the allegations made by the defacto complainant were false. 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the offence, I am of the view that before considering the question of granting anticipatory bail, the petitioner should be directed to appear before the investigating officer. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer on 25th and 26th October, 2011. 6. Post on 1st November, 2011. 7. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner will not be arrested in connection with Crime No.1074 of 2010 of Medical College Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, till 4th November, 2011. 8. The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigating officer in the matter of investigation and for the purpose of conducting the potency test of the petitioner and for B.A.No. 6503 OF 2011 3 recovery of incriminating materials, if any. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this order before the investigating officer.” 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor that the direction in the order dated 19th October, 2011 has been complied with by the petitioner. 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and also taking note of the fact that the direction in the order dated 19th Ocotber, 2011 has been complied with by the petitioner, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioner, the officer in charge of the police station shall release him on bail on his executing bond for `10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: a) The petitioner shall report before the investigating officer between 9 A.M and 11 A.M on alternate Mondays, till the final report B.A.No. 6503 OF 2011 4 is filed or until further orders; b) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; c) The petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence. d) The petitioner shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail. e) The petitioner shall cooperate with the investigating officer in the matter of investigation. f) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled. The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated above. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. cms