IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD SEPTEMBER 2008 / 12TH BHADRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 5292 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.298/08 OF ATINGAL POLICE STATION PETITIONER ----------------- VIJAYAN, S/O.NARAYANAN PULIRATHAI PUTHENVEEDU VADAKKOTTU, PERUMPAZHATHOOR VILLAGE NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.) SRI.HARISH GOPINATH SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ATTINGAL POLICE STATION. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.M.S.BREEZE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No.5292 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd September, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. Petitioner is the Sub Inspector of Police. A crime was registered against him.On an allegation that the de facto complainant, who went to the police station in connection with the complaint made by her in respect of theft of articles like TV set etc., was taken to the residence of the petitioner under false pretext and she was raped by the petitioner on 16.5.2008. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the present complaint is a 100% concocted complaint. The petitioner is absolutely innocent of the allegations made. He is an honest police officer. De facto complainant had gone to the police station for giving a complaint regarding theft of certain articles. The allegations that she was taken to his house in a car from the police station for the purpose of rape etc. are highly improbable and unbelievable, it is submitted. It is also pointed out that the petitioner was in love with one lorry driver and she ran away with him, while her husband was away in Gulf country and a crime was registered as Crime No.638/2007. The crime was registered under the caption, 'woman missing' and thereafter traced out the de facto complainant. BA.5292/08 2 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that the allegation is made against the petitioner is only at the instance of a sand mafia, against whom the petitioner had taken action. It is submitted that the de facto complainant had run away with one of the persons involved in such sand mining. Learned counsel for petitioner also pointed out that the very same de facto complainant had lodged a complaint before the Dy.S.P after three days of the alleged incident, on 19.5.2005. The of allegation of rape was not made in the said complaint. It is only on 23.5.2008 that she made the present complaint of rape to the Dy.S.P. According to him, another complaint was also made on the same day to the Dy.S.P in which also, she did not make any allegation of rape, it is submitted. 5. This petition is strongly opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the incident occurred on 16.5.2008 and it is true that the de facto complainant had made a complaint on 19.5.2008 and nothing was mentioned therein about the rape. But, it is revealed in the investigation that the de facto complainant did not want to make it an issue and make any complaint regarding the allegation of rape. It was also advised by her counsel that she need not make any complaint in respect of the rape. Therefore, there is nothing unusual in suppressing the said allegation of rape in the complaint made on 19.5.2008. It may be due to various reasons. BA.5292/08 3 6. It was submitted that the de facto complainant filed only the present complaint on 23.5.2008, on the basis of which the present crime is registered. No other complaint was made on that day. There is absolutely no motive for the de facto complainant to falsely foist a case of rape against the petitioner, who is a police officer. It is further submitted that the details of the mobile phone calls of petitioner and de facto complainant reveal that there were frequent calls to each other on all days between 16.5.2008 and 22.5.2008. There is no explanation for the petitioner to make such calls within a short span of time to de facto complainant. It is also pointed out that the petitioner is absconding and he is kept under suspension also. It is not proper to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 7. On hearing both sides and on perusal of the case diary, I find that the matter requires investigation. Considering the nature of the allegations made against the petitioner and in the absence of explanation for frequent phone calls made to the de facto complainant and received by the petitioner, during the relevant period, I do not think it fit to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.