IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 5TH JULY 2010 / 14TH ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3053 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.479/2010 OF KASARAGOD POLICE STATION (S): PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED ------------------------------------------ ABDUL RAZAK MUHAMMED.K., S/O.MUHAMMED.K. KATTUR HOUSE, TOWN HALL ROAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SHIRAZ ABDULLA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KASARAGOD POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEK CHAND. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ---------------------------------------------- Bail Application No.3053 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 5th July, 2010. O R D E R This is second application for anticipatory bail, filed by petitioner. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 376, 366A and 109 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, an orphan girl aged 15 years was subjected to rape by 15 persons, including petitioner at various places. 15 crimes are registered. 3. Petitioner is the first accused in the crime. The earlier application for anticipatory bail filed by him as B.A.280/10 was dismissed by this Court, as per order dated 24.3.2010 (Annexure A). It is seen from the said order that several crimes were registered in view of the complaint and various applications for anticipatory bail were filed by the accused and all those were dismissed by the court. The alleged victim is an orphan. She was staying in a Yathimkhana. After attaining puberty, she could not stay in the Yathimkhana and therefore, she had to go out. Under the pretext of protecting her, two ladies brought her and she was later presented to several persons for committing rape. BA NO. 3053/10 2 4. After hearing both sides and on considering the various facts, another bench this court dismissed the earlier application for anticipatory bail (B.A.280/10) filed by petitioner and it was observed at paragraphs 4 and 5 as follows : “4. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are very serious in nature. In a case of this nature, the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be alien to such persons who are allegedly involved in the offence. No discretionary relief can be granted to a person against whom such offences are alleged. After dismissal of the applications for anticipatory bail, many of the accused persons were arrested and most of them were released on bail. 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think this is a fit case where anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be required in this case.” I do not see any ground to come to a different finding. I fully concur with the observations made above. 5. The crime is registered as early as in 2009 and petitioner has not so far surrendered before the police or the court. Hence, the following order is passed : BA NO. 3053/10 3 (1) Petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer without any delay and co-operate with the investigation. (2) No further application for anticipatory bail by petitioner in this crime will be entertained hereafter. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. tgs