IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2008 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 1718 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.294/07 OF PANDALAM POLICE STATION : PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------ VINOD, S/O. VILASINI, AGED 28 YEARS, VINOD BHAVAN, THAVALAMKULAM LAKSHAM VEEDU COLONY, POOZHIKADMURI, KURAMBALA VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SALIM V.S. SRI.RAFFEEKH.K RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PANDALAM POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ B.A.No.1718 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of March, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner faces allegations in a crime registered alleging offences punishable under Section 376 I.P.C and 3(1)(xii) of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The petitioner is a person aged about 27 years. The victim/defacto complainant is a girl born on 09.02.91 as per her school register. The alleged incident took place on 11.03.07 and thereafter on a couple of days. The petitioner had induced the victim to go to his house on the representation that someone has called her over the telephone. When she went to his bedroom, the door was closed and she was raped. This continued for a couple of days. Long later the defacto complainant lodged a complaint and the crime was registered on 20.05.07. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent. The facts and circumstances of this case must impress upon this Court, the indisputable fact that B.A.No.1718 of 2008 2 the sexual intercourses must have been with the consent of the girl who had crossed the aged of consent ie. 16 years on 9.2.07 going by her age certificates. In any view of the matter, the petitioner does not deserve to endure the trauma of arrest and detention. He may be granted anticipatory bail, it is prayed. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor first of all raised a technical objection that in view of the allegation under Section 3 (1)(xii) of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and in the light of Section 18 of the said Act, anticipatory bail cannot be granted to the petitioner. But for the offence under Section 376 I.P.C also, the petitioner cannot be granted anticipatory bail considering the young age of the girl and the nature of the allegations that have been raised against the petitioner. 4. I have considered all the relevant inputs. I am not persuaded to agree that the petitioner is entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. I agree with the learned Public Prosecutor that Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is a complete bar to the claim for anticipatory bail of the petitioner who faces allegations under Section 3(1)(xii) of the said Act. I am satisfied, in these circumstances, that this is B.A.No.1718 of 2008 3 a fit case where the petitioner must appear before the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction or the Investigating Officer and then seek regular bail in the normal and ordinary course. 5. This application is, in these circumstances, dismissed, but I may hasten to observe that if the petitioner surrenders before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate and applies for 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. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-