IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 23RD AUGUST 2011 / 1ST BHADRA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 5467 of 2011() ------------------------- CRIME NO.326/2011 OF THAMARASSERY POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT PETITIONER/ACCUSED ---------------------- FAISAL, S/O.AHAMMEDKUTTY, KUZHIYANCHERY HOUSE, POTTIKAI, ADIVARAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW RESPONDENT : COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THAMARASSERY POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Bail Appln.No.5467 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of August, 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.326 of 2011 of Thamarassery Police Station, Kozhikode District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 376 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code. 3. When the Bail Application came up for admission on 10/08/2011, the following order was passed: “3. The crime was registered on 23.6.2011 on receiving the complaint filed by the de facto complainant before the Magistrate's court which forwarded to the police under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The prosecution case is that on 5.5.2011 at 1 P.M., the de facto complainant was called by the accused to a particular place and when she went there, she was taken to a rubber estate and she was raped by the accused. It is also alleged that before the date of incident, on various occasions gold ornaments belonging to the de facto complainant were taken Bail Appln.No.5467/2011 : 2 : from her by the accused and those ornaments were pledged by him. It is also alleged that on 2.6.2011, the accused came to the house of the de facto complainant and attempted to stab the husband of the de facto complainant, who had reached India from a Gulf country. The husband of the de facto complainant evaded and the de facto complainant sustained injuries as the knife touched her body. She stated that she went to the Government Hospital and from there she was advised to go to the Medical College Hospital. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on 31.5.2011, a petition was filed by the de facto complainant before the Sub Inspector of Police, Kodancherry in which the incidents which allegedly took place on 5.5.2011 are not mentioned. I have perused the said petition. In that petition it is stated that on 7.5.2011, while the de facto complainant was travelling in the autorickshaw of the petitioner, her daughter sustained injuries when the autorickshaw hit against a lorry. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is quite improbable that the de facto complainant, who was allegedly raped by the accused would travel in his autorickshaw voluntarily on 7.5.2011. The counsel also submitted that there are so many improbabilities in the version of the de facto complainant which leads to the conclusion that the case of rape put forward by her is absolutely false. Bail Appln.No.5467/2011 : 3 : 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 17.8.2011, 18.8.2011 and 19.8.2011. 6. Post on 23rd August, 2011. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner will not be arrested in connection with Crime No.326 of 2011 of Thamarassery Police Station, Kozhikode, till 25.8.2011. The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigating officer in the matter of investigation and for recovery of incriminating materials, if any. The petitioner shall also co-operate to undergo the potency test. 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 10/08/2011 has been complied with by the petitioner. 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of Bail Appln.No.5467/2011 : 4 : the case, the nature of the offences and also taking note of the fact that the direction in the order dated 10/08/2011 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 every Monday, till the final report 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 Bail Appln.No.5467/2011 : 5 : indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail. e) 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 skj