IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2010 / 6TH SRAVANA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 4496 of 2010() ----------------------------------- CMP.3758/2010 of J.M.F.C.-I, HOSDRUG Cr.NO. 147/2010 OF CHANDERA POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED : ---------------------------- O.P.T.PAVITHRAN, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.ONAKKAN, MADAKKAL, THEKKE TRIKARIPUR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DIST. BY ADVS. SRI.T.B.SHAJIMON SMT.GOVINDU P.RENUKADEVI RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT : ----------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REP.BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE CHANDERA POLICE STATION, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY SRI. M.S.BREEZ PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------ B.A. No. 4496 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 28th day of July, 2010 O R D E R Petition for bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, de facto complainant was induced by petitioner, who was in love with her on the promise to marry her and as per the vitiated consent she had sexual intercourse with petitioner. She became pregnant and though petitioner promised to marry her, he left the place without informing her and did not marry her. 3. Petitioner is in custody for the past 22 days. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that de facto complainant is aged 27 years and she had sexual intercourse with petitioner with her consent and when she was arrested and produced before Magistrate court along with petitioner, she told the court that she had sexual relationship with petitioner and there is nothing to show that it was against her consent. She also stated that petitioner had married her. In such circumstances, no offence will be attracted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, it is submitted. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that it is true that petitioner and the de facto complainant were in love with each other. B.A. No. 4496 / 2010 2 As per the allegations in the F.I. Statement, de facto complainant was subjected to sexual intercourse with petitioner by inducing her, stating that petitioner would marry her. Such consent cannot be said to be consent as required under Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code. It is also submitted that when she became pregnant and though he promised to marry her, he left the place without informing her. The investigation is in progress. Bail may not be granted at this stage, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides and on considering the various facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant bail at this stage. It is true that de facto complainant stated to the S.I. of Police that a thali was tied around her neck by petitioner about two months back, stating that petitioner would take care of her etc. But, from a reading of her statement alone, I am not inclined at this stage to hold that there was a marriage. In the statement given to the Magistrate, she had no case that she was married. This petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE ln