IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2008 / 17TH POUSHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 53 of 2008 --------------------------------- (CRIME NO. 331/2007 OF PAYYOLI POLICE STATION) PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------- VINEESH, S/O.PREMAN, NHEZHUKKATTUTHARAPARAMBIL HOUSE, MELADI. BY ADV. SMT.K.V.RESHMI RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT & STATE ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE S.I. OF POLICE, PAYYOLI POLICE STATION. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JAI GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/01/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- B.A. No. 53 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of January, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner faces allegations, inter alia, under Secs.366A and 376 of the IPC. He allegedly had kidnapped a minor girl aged below 16 years and had sexual intercourse with her. A complaint was registered before the police. A crime was registered. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent. According to the petitioner, the girl had got married to him and there is no element of rape or the offence under Sec.366A of the IPC in the transaction. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. B.A. No. 53 OF 2008 -: 2 :- The learned Public Prosecutor submits that there is nothing to show that any legal marriage had taken place between the petitioner and the alleged victim. The consent of the alleged victim is of no avail. She was well below the age of consent. In these circumstances, the petitioner may not be granted anticipatory bail, it is prayed. 4. I have considered all the relevant inputs. I find merit in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. There are absolutely no elements which can justify the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail. I find no such features available in this case which can persuade this Court to invoke the extraordinary equitable discretion under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C. It is for the petitioner to surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be able to produce the documents to show whether there is a legal marriage. She prays for time for producing such documents. I need only mention that if any such document is available, the same can be produced before the learned Magistrate when regular bail is claimed. 6. With the above observations, this bail application is dismissed; but with the observation that if the petitioner B.A. No. 53 OF 2008 -: 3 :- surrenders before the learned Magistrate and seeks bail, after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits and expeditiously. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge