IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 8TH ASWINA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 5822 of 2008() ------------------------------------------ (CRIME NO.199/2003 OF PULIKEEZHU POLICE STATION) APPLICANT/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------- SUNIL, S/O. VASU, KUZHAKKETHIL VEEDU, VENGAL, ALAMTHURUTHU, KAVUMBHAGOM, THIRUVALLA. BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANTS: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. DEPUTY SUPERINTEDENT OF POLICE, THIRUVALLA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S. BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/09/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.HEMA, J. =========== Bail Application No.5822 of 2008 =============================== Dated this the 30th day of September, 2008. O R D E R This is a petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections365, 364(A), 376, 507(ii) IPC and Section 3 of Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. According to the prosecution, the petitioner allegedly committed rape on de facto complainant and he had sexual relationship with her thereafter on promise to marry her, on several occasions. Even though she insisted that they have to conduct a register marriage, before they indulge in sexual relationship, she was raped, ignoring her request. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted as per the allegations, offence under Section 376 IPC is involved. The de facto complainant's case is that she was living with the petitioner, as husband and wife, on the promise given by the petitioner to marry her. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the de facto complainant has gone abroad and she is living with another person. Therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted, it is submitted. Bail Application No.5822 of 2008 2 4. Learned public prosecutor opposed the bail application and submitted that the 1st accused committed rape, without consent even though she insisted that they can have relationship only after registering the marriage. As per instructions, the de facto complainant is abroad at present but the allegation that she is living with another person is not correct. 5. On hearing both sides and on considering nature of the allegations made, I am satisfied that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. The complaint was filed as early as on 29.8.2003 and the petitioner was not available for arrest, for the past more than five years. 6. Therefore the petitioner is directed to surrender before the Magistrate Court concerned or before the investigating officer and co-operate with the investigation, within one month from today. With this direction, the petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. bkn/-