IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2008 / 14TH POUSHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 7969 of 2007(N) ------------------------------ CRIME NO.245/07 OF MALAYINKEEZHU POLICE STATION, TRINAVDRUM. PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 & 2 ------------------------------------------ 1. NOBLE, MEPRAKUZHI PUTHEN VEEDU, VIZHAVOOR, MALAYAM P.O., MALAYINKEEZHU, TRIVANDRUM. 2. SUJAN, KATTUVILA VEEDU, VIZHAVOOR, MALAYAM P.O., MALAYINKEEZHU, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHAN V.NAIR RESPONDENTS: STATE ------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MALAYINKEEZHU POLICE STATION, MALAYINKEEZHU, TRIVANDRUM, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JAI GEORGE. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- B.A. No. 7969 OF 2007 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of January, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners are the accused in a crime registered for offences punishable, inter alia, under Secs.376 and 384 read with Sec.34 of the IPC. The crime was registered on 27/10/07. In the First Information Statement, an allegation is raised about an alleged incident of rape which took place in March, 2007. The two accused persons had allegedly trespassed into the residential premises of the de facto complainant and had allegedly subjected her to forcible sexual intercourse. It is further alleged that while one accused was engaged in the sexual intercourse, the other had photographed the sexual relationship between the de facto complainant and the other. No complaint was made at that point of time. But later, it is alleged that the accused persons B.A. No. 7969 OF 2007 -: 2 :- started attempts to extort money from the de facto complainant on the threat that they would release the photographs to others. Thus, an amount of about Rs.65,000/- has allegedly been extracted from the de facto complainant, who, without the knowledge of her husband, raised the money by borrowals from friends and relatives and also by pledging her gold ornaments. Later, when the accused persons allegedly started insisting that the de facto complainant must part with more money and must agree to have sexual intercourses with them again, the de facto complainant was obliged to make the complaint before the police. Accordingly, the First Information Statement was registered on 27/10/07. Investigation is in progress. The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the story advanced is a cock and bull story by the de facto complainant who, as well as her husband, has questionable antecedents. She had demanded money from the accused. They were not willing to give the same. Thereupon, threats are being made to implicate them in an attempt to extract money from them. The accused do not have a mobile telephone with camera; nor are they competent to take photographs using such mobile phone with camera facility. The learned counsel for the B.A. No. 7969 OF 2007 -: 3 :- petitioners further points out that a number of inconsistent earlier allegations have been raised in the complaint filed by the de facto complaint. Her earlier allegation was that her face was photographed and by camera techniques it was superimposed on a lady who was having sexual intercourse with the petitioners. She later alleged that her naked photographs were taken when he was taking bath in the bath room. Totality of circumstances must certainly instil doubts, suspicion and dissatisfaction in the mind of the court and, at any rate, the petitioners do not deserve to suffer the trauma of arrest and incarceration on the basis of such inconsistent and uninspiring allegations, contends the learned counsel for the petitioners. 3. In the nature of the contentions raised, the learned Public Prosecutor was requested to place the Case Diary for my perusal. I have perused the same in detail. The records show that the petitioners have already been questioned by the police officials. At this early stay of the investigation I shall not embark on any detailed discussions on the acceptability of the allegations or the credibility of the data collected. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor does not oppose the application and submits that appropriate conditions may be imposed in the interests of a fair, efficient and expeditious B.A. No. 7969 OF 2007 -: 4 :- investigation. I reckon the stand taken by the learned Public Prosecutor as reasonable and fair after perusing the Case Diary and I am satisfied that anticipatory bail, subject to appropriate conditions, can be granted in favour of the petitioners. 5. In the result, this petition is allowed. Following directions are issued under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C: (i) The petitioners shall appear before the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction at 11 a.m. on 14/1/08. They shall be released on regular bail on their executing bonds for Rs.50,000/- each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate. (ii) The petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. on 15/1/08, 16/1/08 and 17/1/08. During this period the Investigator shall be at liberty to interrogate the petitioners in custody and take all necessary steps for the proper conduct of the investigation, including the examination of the accused by the Medical Officer to get the potency test conducted. Thereafter on all Mondays and Fridays between 10 a.m. and 12 noon for a period of two months. Subsequently, they shall so make themselves available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer as and when directed by the B.A. No. 7969 OF 2007 -: 5 :- Investigating Officer in writing to do so. (iii) If the petitioners do not appear before the learned Magistrate as directed in clause (i), directions issued above shall thereafter stand revoked and the police shall be at liberty to arrest the petitioners and deal with them in accordance with law as if these directions were not issued at all; (iv) If the petitioners were arrested prior to their surrender on 14/1/08 as directed in clause (i) above, they shall be released on their executing bonds for Rs.50,000/- each without any sureties undertaking to appear before the learned Magistrate on 14/1/08. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge