IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 20TH MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7711 of 2008() ------------------------------------------ (CRIME NO.691 OF 2008 OF THE GURUVAYOOR POLICE STATION) PETITIONER/ ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- M.RAJESH, S/O. GOPI, SOWPARNIKA HOUSE, CHERUVANNUR, FEROOK, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. MR.M.RAMESH CHANDER RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI-31. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K. HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------------- Bail Appl. No. 7711 of 2008 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of February, 2009. ORDER Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Section 376 of IPC. According to prosecution, petitioner promised to marry de facto complainant and enticed her to go from her house to a lodge at Guruvayoor and she was subjected to rape against her will and consent. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the allegations made against petitioner are absolutely false. Petitioner is the actual victim at the hands of a woman who used to file false complaint against others. Annexures-I to III documents reveal that she made similar allegations against another person and trial was also conducted. She did not appear in court and hence warrant had to be issued to procure her presence. She is in the habit giving such false complaint against various persons. She constructed a palatial house and hence, petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail, failing which he will be arrested and detained in prison and he will be harassed on the [B.A.No.7711/08] 2 basis of a complaint made by a woman, who is in the habit of repeatedly making false allegations against one or other person. Petitioner is a boy aged 25years and his entire future will be spoiled at the hands of a woman like de facto complainant, if anticipatory bail is refused, it is submited. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed this bail application. It is submitted that petitioner filed an application for anticipatory bail earlier and it was dismissed as per Annexure-IV order by this Court on 25.11.208 with a direction to the petitioner to surrender before the investigating officer without any delay and co-operate with the investigation. Petitioner has not so far surrendered or co-operated with the investigation, though the order was passed as early as on 25.11.2008. The crime was registered as early as on 10.10.2008 and for want of petitioner the investigation is in a stand still. The allegations in the case diary reveal that petitioner had committed rape as alleged by the girl on promise to marry. 5. On hearing both sides, I find that the earlier application for anticipatory bail by petitioner was dismissed after considering various contentions raised by petitioner. The mere fact that the girl had made an earlier complaint in the year 2006 against another person cannot by itself be a ground to grant [B.A.No.7711/08] 3 anticipatory bail. It cannot be taken as special circumstance to invoke provision under Section 438 Cr.P.C. In the serious nature of allegations made, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail. Though a direction was issued to petitioner to surrender before investigating officer he has not chosen to do so. In the above circumstances, the following order is passed: 1) Petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer forthwith and co-operate with the investigation. Whether he surrenders or not, police is at liberty to arrest him and proceed in accordance with law. 2) No further application for anticipatory bail by the petitioner in this crime will be entertained by this Court. Petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Krs.