IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2010 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 1684 of 2010 CRIME NO.972 OF 2009 OF THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA PETITIONER:-2ND ACCUSED. -------------------------------------------- MOHAN P.MATHEWS,S/O.MATHEWS, PARAMPATHU JOLLY VILLA, VAZHAMUTTOM P.O., OMALLOOR. BY ADV. SRI.VINOY VARGHESE KALLUMOOTTILL RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT : STATE: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION, THRUVALLA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 1684 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 24th day of March, 2010 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.2 in Crime No.972 of 2009 of Thiruvalla Police Station, Pathanamthitta District. 2. The offence alleged against the accused is under Section 376 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Originally, the case was registered under the caption “woman missing”. The girl was a working girl. Since she did not return to her house on 5.11.2009, her father reported the matter to the police. The police found out the girl. It is stated that she was in love with the first accused. Under the pretext that they could spend some time merrily, she was taken on a bike by the first accused. Pretending that the bike had undergone some break down, it was stopped near a bridge, where house boats were available. She was cleverly taken inside the house boat. At that time, two or more B.A. NO. 1684 OF 2010 :: 2 :: persons were available in the house boat. They stated that the room of the first accused was a neighbouring one. The girl was taken to that room. The allegation is that she was raped by the first accused. Thereafter, the first accused went on his bike. The girl was taken in a car. In the car, she was sexually abused by the second accused. She was taken to a lodge, where she was raped by the other accused. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the prosecution version is not true. There is delay in lodging the First Information Statement. It is further stated that the story put forward by the de facto complainant and also the victim cannot be believed, that there was no incident as alleged by the prosecution and that there is no material to connect the petitioner with the offence. 5. While disposing of an application for anticipatory bail, meticulous analysis of all the facts and circumstances cannot be made. Such a course can be adopted and findings could be rendered only after trial. More over, if any finding or observation is made while disposing of the application for anticipatory bail, it would cause prejudice either to the prosecution or to the defence. B.A. NO. 1684 OF 2010 :: 3 :: 6. I am not dealing with the contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner that there was delay in lodging the First Information Statement. That is a matter to be considered by the court at the time of trial. At the same time, it is to be noted that the father of the girl reported the matter to the police on the next day. In the First Information Statement, it is mentioned that he had gone to the place where the girl was working and enquired with the persons who were found there as to where the girl had gone. He has made other enquiries also. The educational background and the social background of the victim as well as the de facto complainant are also to be taken note of in this context. I am not inclined to accept the contention of the petitioner that there are no materials, prima facie, to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence. 7. In a grave offence of this nature, I do not think that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be required in the case. I am of the view that this is not a fit case where anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. Going by the allegations levelled against the petitioner, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to the B.A. NO. 1684 OF 2010 :: 4 :: discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/