IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 3RD OCTOBER 2008 / 11TH ASWINA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6141 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO. 151/2008 OF BEYPORE POLICE STATION PETITIONER (S): ACCUSED --------------------------- RAHEEB, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O. MUHAMMED, KARYAPRAMBATH HOUSE, MUTHUPARAMBA, EDAVANNAPPARA, KONDOTTY VIA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY P.P. SRI K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A. No. 6141 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 3rd day of October,2008 O R D E R Petition for bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 366A and 376 IPC. According to prosecution, petitioner who is a teacher in profession in Madrassa induced a minor girl aged 14 years and on a complaint given by her brother, a crime was registered against petitioner. She was also allegedly raped by petitioner, repeatedly. They were in love with each other. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner and minor girl were in love with each other. At her instance, as persuaded by her, he had taken her to the beach but that will not constitute an offence under section 366A IPC. Citing a decision reported in Smt. Kavita V. State and others (2000 Crl LJ 315), it was contended that unless the victim is persuaded or induced for sexual intercourse, offence under section 366A IPC will not be made out. Nobody will normally take a child to an open place like beach for the purpose of sexual intercourse and hence offence under section 366A is not attracted, it is submitted. 4. He also contended that offence under section 376 is added only because other sections will not be attracted. It was BA 6141/08 -2- included by police, with ulterior motive, at the instance of the local people and the media, who had intervened in the meanwhile. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner and child were seen at the beach and some local people intervened and petitioner was offended and he reacted to them, which ended in an altercation. Thereafter, people gathered and they took petitioner and the minor girl forcibly to police station. By the time, media also came to the scene and, hence, offence under section 376 was included. Petitioner is absolutely innocent of the allegations made, it is submitted. In cases where there is chance for false implication, bail is to be granted as the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Ram Govind Upadyay v. Sudarshan Singh and others (AIR 2002 SC 1475), it is contended. 5. This petition is strongly opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that offence of rape is clearly revealed from the statement given by the minor girl herself. She stated that rape was committed on previous occasions (and not on the date on which petitioner was taken into custody). The child was only 14 years and petitioner is a teacher who committed a heinous crime. Petitioner was arrested on 23-8-2008 and BA 6141/08 -3- investigation is being conducted into the offence. In such circumstances, it may not be proper to grant bail to petitioner at this stage. 6. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that it is not fit to grant bail to petitioner, at this stage. The omissions in the First Information Statement regarding rape is of no consequence since it was given by the brother, who has not aware of what is transpired to the girl until she came out with the allegations of rape. This petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. mn.