IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 2ND JULY 2010 / 11TH ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 2093 of 2010() ------------------------------------ (IN CRIME NO.147/2010 OF CHANDERA POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD) PETITIONER/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- O.P.T.PAVITHRAN, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.ONAKKAN, MADIKKAL, P.O.UDUMBUMTHALA, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.AMARESAN RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.P.A.SALIM THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J ---------------------- B.A.No.2093 OF 2010 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of July, 2010 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under section 376 IPC. According to prosecution, petitioner promised to marry defacto complainant and committed rape on her on several occasions. She became pregnant and they continued the relationship. Later, he backed out from the promise and a complaint was filed. 3. Learned public prosecutor submitted that defacto complainant had given statement to the effect that he had eloped with the petitioner and they had physical relationship since he promised to marry her. Even after the girl became pregnant, both of them have been lived together. Offence under section 376 IPC is not involved in this case. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned public prosecutor submitted that serious allegations are made against the petitioner. The consent given for sexual relationship is vitiated, since he had promised to marry defacto complainant. Later he B.A. No.2093/10 2 back out from the promise and left the place. FIR was registered on 27.3.2010. 5. On hearing both sides, considering the serious allegations made, I find that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioner may seek his remedy before the trial court, where he can put forward the contentions raised. Consideration for anticipatory bail u/s.438 Cr.P.C and bail u/s. 437 and 439 Cr.P.C. are different. This petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Sou.