IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 19TH JULY 2010 / 28TH ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 4310 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.121/2010 OF PERAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, THRISSUR. (S): PETITIONER ------------------------------ KAVARAKUTTAN @ KUTTAN, AGED 35 YEARS S/O.GANAPATHY, KUNNATH HOUSE, VARADIYAM AMBEDKAR COLONY, AVANNUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESETNED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ---------------------------------------------- Bail Application No.4310 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 19th July, 2010. O R D E R This petition is for bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 376 and 506(i) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, while husband of defacto complainant was in jail, petitioner trespassed into the house of defacto complainant and committed rape on her, on more than one occasion. The accused had also criminally intimidated her to kill her husband and children, in case she did not oblige and committed the offence. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the complaint is lodged only after one year and five months of the incident. There is long delay in lodging the complaint and there is no satisfactory explanation. It is only after defacto complainant's husband came out from the jail and defacto complainant was found be to be pregnant that she made a complaint against petitioner. The defacto complainant is aged about 31 years, who is married, having two children. Petitioner is in custody for the past 46 days. BA NO. 4310/10 2 4. This petition is strongly opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioner is involved in various other crimes. Proceedings under the Goonda Act are also initiated against him. As per the allegations in the complaint, petitioner had threatened defacto complainant to oblige for sexual acts, while her husband was in the jail and because of the threat, there was delay in lodging the complaint, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides and considering the serious nature of the allegations made, I do not think that this is a fit case to grant bail. Petitioner may move the trial court for expeditious disposal of the case and if there is delay in disposal, petitioner will be at liberty to apply for bail before the court concerned. Considering the nature of the allegations made and the likely- hood of absconding, I do not think it fit to grant bail to petitioner at this stage. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. tgs