IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 28TH MARCH 2011 / 7TH CHAITHRA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 2348 of 2011() ------------------------ Crime No. 155 of 2011 of Muvattupuzha Police Station, Ernakulam District PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------- JITHU, S/O.SOMAN, RESIDING AT VELLAPPILLIL VEEDU, NADUKKARA KARA, MUVATTUPUZHA VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM RESPONDENT(S): STATE AND DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT --------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MUVATTUPUZHA POLICE STATION (INVESTIGATING OFFICE IN CR.NO.155/2011) REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, SHANMUGHAM ROAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682 031. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. M.S. BREEZE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/03/2011 ALONG WITH B.A. NO. 2319 OF 2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. .................................................... Bail Application Nos. 2348 of 2011 & 2319 of 2011 ..................................................... Dated: 28-03-2011 COMMON ORDER Petitioners, who are accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Crime No. 155 of 2011 of Muvattupuzha Police Station, Ernakulam District for offences punishable under Sections 363, 354 and 376 read with Sec. 34 I.P.C. and Sec. 66 (E), 67, 67 A and 67 B of Information Technology Act, seek their enlargement on bail. Petitioners were arrested on 14-02-2011. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the applications contending inter alia as follows:- The 18 year old victim Anju Jose is a resident of Peringazha in Maradi Village. One day after 20-4-2009 at about 8.30 a.m. she was waiting for the bus at Pallikkavu Junction for proceeding to Muvattupuzha for Bail Application Nos. 2348 of 2011 - 2 - & 2319 of 2011 attending computer entrance coaching class. While so, one Jithu (A2) of Vazhakkulam and known to her came there in his car and promised her to secure admission for the engineering course in Bangalore. After craftily inducing her to go with him he took her in his car. On the way he made certain prurient overtures at her. He soon transferred to his mobile phone without the knowledge of Anju the pictures of the breast and other forbidden areas of her anatomy into which his dexterous fingers explored. He thereafter left her in the lurch after giving a threat that he will defame her by publishing in the internet the pictures he had taken without her knowledge. Thereafter on another day A2 called her and told her that a friend of his by name Sandeep Gopal (A1) would be waiting for her with his red Maruti Car at Pallikkavu on the next day and asked her to go with him and obey his directions failing which he would publish her pictures which he had already taken. Fearing ignominy Anju was compelled to obey the directions of A2 . A1 who was waiting with his red Maruti Car took her along the road leading to Thodupuzha . After crossing a bridge at a place called Thottakkara A1 pulled up the car by the side Bail Application Nos. 2348 of 2011 - 3 - & 2319 of 2011 of a canal bund road near a rubber plantation and raped her from inside the Car. The car was driven by another person (A3). They then returned. On the way at Arakuzha Junction A2 who was waiting on the road got into the car . A1 was then dropped at a place near a saw mill on the way to Thodupuzha. She was then dropped at Kavumpadi and A2 along with the driver went with the car. On another day during the 2nd week of May 2009 while she was standing near the Chappel at Aramanapadi at about 9.30 a.m. A1 came in a Maruti Car. He told her that he had to discuss certain things with her. Both of them got into the back seat. Besides the driver there was a black complexioned person sitting in the front seat of the car. The car was pulled up by the road side near the Bishop's House . For about half an hour A1 talked to her during which time he sexually abused her . Thereafter, they dropped her there and went away and she went to the College. Subsequently, on another day at about 9 '0 clock in the morning while she was walking towards Moovattupuzha from Pallikkavala, A1 and another person came in a Qualis Car and asked her to get into the Car. When she hesitated he threatened Bail Application Nos. 2348 of 2011 - 4 - & 2319 of 2011 to publish the pictures which A2 had taken in his mobile phone. Fearing the consequences she got into the middle seat on which A1 was sitting. At about 9.30 a.m. they took her to a house by the side of the Thodupuzha River. A1 told her that the said house belonged to the driver who was his friend. Opposite to the said house was the house and office of A1. After parking the Car the person who drove the car opened the house . A1 took her into the bedroom on the first floor and had sexual intercourse with her. They spent about an hour in the house . Thereafter both of them took her in the Qualis car and dropped her near the private bus stand at Moovattupuzha at about 11 a.m. There are altogether 8 accused persons . Accused Nos. 3 to 5 who had also facilitated A1 ( who is a practicing Advocate) are yet to be arrested. The investigation of the case is still in the preliminary stage and the results of the examination of the Laptop, Mobile phones, vehicles etc. are yet to be obtained. The accused persons who were exploiting the helpless situation of the victim were, after taking her semi nude photographs, blackmailing her . Instances of this nature are on the increase and gullible girls fall easy to prey to Bail Application Nos. 2348 of 2011 - 5 - & 2319 of 2011 such sex- hungry vultures who masquerade as genuine friends. 3. Having regard to the gravity of the offences, nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioners, the relative conduct of the parties, the extent of the injury sustained, the propensities of the petitioners, the sentiments of the near relatives of the victim and the other facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that if the petitioners are released on bail, they will definitely influence and intimidate the prosecution witnesses. There is also the likelihood of the petitioners making themselves scarce and fleeing from justice. I am, therefore, not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners at this stage. These applications are accordingly dismissed. Dated this the 28th day of March, 2011. Sd/- V. RAMKUMAR, (JUDGE) /true copy/ P.S. to Judge