IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 20TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 29TH KARTHIKA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 6813 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.2105/2009 OF CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3 ----------------------------------------- SACKARIA, S/O.YOHANNAN, AGED 46 YEARS, CHOONDIYIL, THAYIKATTUKARA, ALUVA WEST. BY ADV. SRI.P.A.MUJEEB RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. DGP SRI.GOVINDAN NAIR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.K.SURESH THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.6813 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of November, 2009 ORDER The petitioner Sackaria and one Lavanya had filed Bail Application No.6376 of 2009 before this Court. That application was disposed of by the order dated 10th November, 2009 by which the prayer for bail made by Lavanya was granted and the Bail Application was dismissed in so far as it relates to the petitioner herein. The order dated 10.11.2009 reads as follows: “Petitioners 1 and 2 herein, namely, Lavanya and Sackaria are respectively accused Nos.5 and 3 in Crime No.2105 of 2009 of Central Police Station, Ernakulam. They seek bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The offences alleged against the accused are under Section 366A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 5 and 8 of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act. 3. The crime was originally registered for the offences under the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, consequent on a search made at a residential flat at Ernakulam on 22.9.2009. On such search, the petitioners herein and another girl were found in the flat and they were arrested BA No.6813/2009 2 on the same date. The girl referred to above was also considered as an accused by the police originally and she was arrayed as accused No.2. Later, it was revealed on investigation that the said girl was a minor and that she was a victim of a crime committed by the other accused. 4. The prosecution case is that accused Nos.1 to 3, namely, Soja, Deepu and Sackaria procured the minor girl and she was subjected to forced sex by several persons at different places. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that even going by the prosecution case, accused No.5 Lavanya has no role to play in the offence under Section 366A IPC. At best, she could be treated as a person who committed the offence under the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act. 6. The learned Director General of Prosecution submitted that if the third accused Sackaria is released on bail at this stage, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. It is most likely that he may indulge in activities to intimidate and influence the witnesses. 7. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the duration of the judicial custody undergone by accused No.5, the nature of the offence and the present stage of BA No.6813/2009 3 investigation, I am of the view that bail can be granted to accused No.5 Lavanya on stringent conditions. Bail was refused to her by the learned Sessions Judge on the ground that she belongs to Tamil Nadu. I think it is not proper to refuse bail to her on that ground alone. 8. At the same time, I do not think it proper to grant bail to accused No.3 Sackaria at this stage. If he is released on bail, it would adversely affect the proper and smooth investigation of the case. It is also likely that the third accused would try to tamper with the evidence and attempt to intimidate and influence the witnesses. For the aforesaid reasons, I am not inclined to grant bail to the third accused and the Bail Application is dismissed in so far as it relates to the third accused. The first petitioner shall be released on bail on her executing bond for Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Ernakulam. The sureties shall be persons who own immovable properties in the State of Kerala. The sureties shall also produce the title deeds in respect of the immovable properties owned by them. The title deeds shall be kept before the learned Magistrate until BA No.6813/2009 4 further orders. The grant of bail to accused No.5 (first petitioner) is also subject to the following conditions: a) The first petitioner shall report before the investigating officer between 9 A.M. and 11 A.M. on alternate Mondays, till the final report is filed or until further orders; b) The first petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; c) The first petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence; d) The first petitioner shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail; e) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled. The Bail Application is allowed as above in so far as it relates to accused No.5 and the Bail Application is dismissed in so far as it relates to accused No.3.” 2. The present Bail Application is filed on 13.11.2009. There is no change of circumstance. The practice of filing successive Bail Applications immediately after the dismissal of another Bail Application is to be deprecated. The Bail Application is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl