IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 1ST JUNE 2009 / 11TH JYAISHTA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 2434 of 2009() -------------------------------------- CRIME NO.282/2009 OF PERINTHALMANNA POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------- ABDUL RAHIMAN USTHAD, PATHARI BHAVAS MANZIL, PUTHANANGADI P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.DILIP MOHAN RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE: -------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PERINTHALMANNA POLICE STATION. SRI. M.S. BREEZ, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No.2434 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 1st day of June, 2009 O R D E R 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.282/2009 of Perinthalmanna Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under sections 376, 366, 464 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that the defacto complainant (Rubina) approached the accused for the treatment of her brother for Epilepsy. The accused made her believe that she was suffering some mental ailment and under the pretext of treatment, raped her. Even thereafter, under the pretext of treatment, she was taken to Earvadi, a place in Tamil Nadu and committed rape on her. Marriage of the defacto complainant took place thereafter on 20/05/2008. The prosecution case is that even after her marriage, the accused compelled the defacto complainant for sexual intercourse and B.A. No.2434/2009 2 threatened her that the public be made known about the incident which took place before, by using the nude photographs of the defacto complainant which the accused had taken in his mobile phone. It is stated that the defacto complainant disclosed everything to her husband and as advised by her husband, a complaint was filed. The petitioner would contend that the defacto complainant is his wife, as the petitioner married her on 20/05/2008 at Earvadi. Learned Public Prosecutor would contend that there is no proof to show that the accused had married the defacto complainant as alleged. 4. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the allegations made against the accused and other circumstances, I do not think that this is a fit case where the petitioner is entitled to get an order under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code. The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm