IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2010 / 5TH MAGHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 7626 of 2009() --------------------------------------- CRIME NO.207/2009 OF PANOOR POLICE STATION, KANNUR. .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------- SHAKKEER, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.MOHAMOOD, CHERMOLIL, ELANGODU, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.UNNI. K.K. (EZHUMATTOOR) SRI.V.SUMESH RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PANOOR POLICE STATION. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. SRI. M.S. BREEZ, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No.7626 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 25th day of January, 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 the accused in Crime No.207/2009 of Panoor Police Station, Kannur. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 376, 405, 420 and 493 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The de facto complainant filed a complaint before the court of the additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thalasseri. That complaint was forwarded to the police under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The crime was accordingly registered. 4. The gist of the allegation made against the petitioner is the following: The de facto complainant was residing under the protection of her mother and brothers. The petitioner fell in love with the de facto complainant. He made her to believe that he would marry her. She was made to B.A. No.7626/2009 2 believe that the petitioner is financially very sound and he is employed in a Gulf country. The petitioner came to India on 10/2/2009. The de facto complainant was told by him that the marriage was to be solemnised immediately. Stating that 'nikkah' was to be registered, several blank papers were got signed from the de facto complainant. The de facto complainant insisted that the marriage should be conducted in accordance with the religious rites. On 30/4/2009, there was nobody else in the house of the de facto complainant. The petitioner had sexual contact with her on several occasions. The petitioner assured that he would marry the de facto complainant in accordance with the religious rites. He also made her to believe that the marriage would be registered in accordance with law. The petitioner brought one person describing as Usthad of a mosque and several papers were got signed from the de facto complainant under the pretext that it was a document intended for registration of marriage. The de facto complainant was thereafter taken to several places including a lodge and the petitioner had sexual relationship with her. The petitioner demanded Rs.5 lakhs B.A. No.7626/2009 3 from the de facto complainant stating that the amount was required for the petitioner to conduct a business. The mother of the de facto complainant mortgaged her immovable property in the District Co-operative Bank and arranged a sum of Rs.2 lakhs. The petitioner told the de facto complainant that the amount would not be sufficient and ornaments of the de facto complainant weighing 20 sovereigns were also taken by the petitioner. The petitioner also insisted that he required a Ford Icon Car for the purpose of his business. That request was also complied with by the de facto complainant. Later, the behaviour of the petitioner changed. He stealthily removed all the relevant documents evidencing the relationship between the parties. Later, on another occasion, when the de facto complainant insisted that customary marriage should be conducted, the petitioner attacked and manhandled her. He also disclosed that he had not married her and he had stated otherwise to the de facto complainant only to enjoy her sexually. The petitioner also declared that he did not want the de facto complainant thereafter. It is alleged that the de facto complainant was B.A. No.7626/2009 4 threatened by the petitioner with dire consequences, had she taken any steps against the petitioner. 5. In the nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Very serious allegations are levelled against the petitioner. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be required in the case. For the aforesaid reasons, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Bail Application is accordingly dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm