IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 23RD JANUARY 2009 / 3RD MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 293 of 2009() ------------------------------------------ (CRIME NO.382/08 OF PALODE POLICE STATION, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT) .................... PETITIONER:ACCUSED: -------------------------------------------- PACHA RAVI, S/O. PADMANABHAN, "PADMALAYAM" ORIKKUZHI, PACHA, PALUVALLY P.O. PALODE VILLAGE, ANAD MURI, NEDUMANGAD TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL JACOB JOSE RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K. HEMA, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= B.A. No.293 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 23rd day of January,2009 Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Section 511 of 377 IPC. According to prosecution, petitioner attempted to commit unnatural offence against a boy aged 14 years. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is a 57 year old panchayat member. This case is falsely foisted against him at the instance of another panchayat member, against whom he had lodged a complaint on the previous day. The said panchayat member belongs to C.P.I(M) which is the ruling party. Therefore, under his influence the case is being lodged against petitioner with a view to harass him. 4. It is also submitted that the allegations made against petitioner will not constitute any offence as alleged. It is unlikely that in a busy place like the library petitioner would attempt such an offence and it is pointed out that the library is situated in the first floor of a waiting shed where several persons will be available. It is also pointed out that there is open space in the library without windows at different places and it is highly improbable that an act will be committed by petitioner, as alleged. 5. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that considering the nature of allegations made, it is BA 293/2009 -2- not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. It is also pointed out that there is no reason why the alleged victim should foist a false case against petitioner. 6. On hearing both sides, considering the serious nature of allegations made, I do not find that it is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. I am not considering the question whether offence under Section 377 or attempt to commit unnatural offence is made out etc. for the purpose of disposal of this application. Petitioner is at liberty to raise all such contentions before the learned Magistrate on his surrender before that Court. I make it clear that dismissal of this anticipatory bail application by itself may not be a ground for rejecting an application for bail under Section 437 Cr.P.C. It is needless to say that consideration for grant of anticipatory bail is different from consideration for grant of bail under Section 437 Cr.P.C. 7. Crime is registered as early as on 2.12.2008. Petitioner is not available for interrogation and investigation. Hence, petitioner is directed to surrender before the Magistrate Court concerned or before the Investigating Officer without any delay and co- operate with the investigation. Whether he BA 293/2009 -3- surrenders or not, police is at liberty to arrest him and proceed in accordance with law. With this direction, this petition is dismissed. mn K.HEMA, JUDGE.