IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 26TH JUNE 2008 / 5TH ASHADHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 4025 of 2008(Y) ------------------------------ CRIME NO.219/08 OF KODANADU POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER : ACCUSED --------------------------- JACOB, S/O. POULO, PUTHUSSERY HOUSE KORUMBASSERY KARA, KOOVAPPADY VILLAGE ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.O.GEORGE RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT ------------- STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------------------- B.A.No.4025 of 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of June, 2008 ORDER This petition is for bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 376, 313 and 506(1) IPC. 3. According to the prosecution, the defacto complainant was working in the financial institution run by the petitioner. On 12.2.2008, the defacto complainant was made to drink lime juice in which some sedative was put. While she was drowsing in the sofa, the petitioner allegedly took some nude photographs of the defacto complainant in his mobile phone. Thereafter, showing those photographs of the defacto complainant, he committed rape on her on 13.2.2008 at about 2 p.m. The petitioner continued to blackmail her and subjected her to rape on her on several occasions by threatening her that photographs will be shown to others in case, she did not surrender etc. 4. The defacto complainant stopped going to the petitioner's institution by the end of February 2008. In May 2008, she had a marriage proposal and by the time, she came to BA 4025/08 2 know that she is pregnant through the petitioner. She informed the petitioner that she is pregnant and sought for help. He accordingly made arrangements for miscarriage. She was taken to a doctor at Pathanamthitta for miscarriage and from there to Ranni. She had a miscarriage at Ranni on 14.5.2008. In the meantime, a complaint was made to the police by the father of the defacto complainant and a crime was registered under the caption 'woman missing'. Defacto complainant therefore sent a letter to the police as well as the parents stating that she is in Muringoor Retreat Centre. Though enquiries were made at the Centre, she was not available. 5. But, she reached the house and on 16.5.2008, in the morning and she was questioned by the parents since they knew that the information that she is in Muringoor was not correct. Later, on knowing that the petitioner was subjected to rape, she was taken to the police station on the same day. On the next day, she was produced before the learned Magistrate. She gave a statement there. Thereafter, petitioner was questioned again by the parents while she divulged the entire facts. She was then taken to the police station on 19.5.2008 and a statement was BA 4025/08 3 given by her to the police and a crime was registered on the basis of the said statement under Sections 376, 313 and 506(1) IPC against the petitioner. The petitioner was arrested on 20.5.2008 and he is in custody from that day onwards. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that all the allegations made are totally false. The petitioner admits that he had sexual intercourse with the defacto complainant. But, according to him, it was with the consent of the defacto complainant who is a major. She was not raped on any occasion and the allegation of taking photographs is totally false, it is submitted. To substantiate the contention, it is pointed out that the defacto complainant did not make any allegation of rape either before the learned Magistrate or to the police on 16.5.2008. It was only much later, that she came forward with the allegation of rape etc. It is also pointed out that the allegation that she was taken to Ranni for miscarriage etc. are all false, since even according to the defacto complainant she was at Muringoor as disclosed by the letter written to the defacto complainant's parents. BA 4025/08 4 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the defacto complainant had written a letter to the police stating that she was impregnated by one Mahesh and the letter is available with the police. It is also alleged that the petitioner is having physical relationship with various other persons and the petitioner has been falsely implicated in an offence of this nature. The petitioner is in custody for the past 37 days and hence he requests that he may be granted bail. 8. This petition is strongly opposed. Learned public prosecutor submitted that the manner in which the defacto complainant was subjected to sexual intercourse is heinous. The nude photographs of the defacto complainant were taken after putting her under sedation and by using the same, she was subjected to sexual assault. It is also pointed out that the various facts stated by the defacto complainant in the beginning of the episodes were not true. She herself made the corrections and gave the true facts before the police later are the subsequent statements were found to be correct on investigation. For example, she sent a letter at Muringoor while he was actually in BA 4025/08 5 the hospital for miscarriage. On investigation, it is found that she was not in Muringoor during that period. 9. She was forced to give one statement or another because of the peculiar circumstances in which she was put and she was compelled by the circumstances not to divulge the true facts in the beginning, stated learned public prosecutor. This was because of various factors, such threat to her reputation, the threat of her nudity being exposed etc. She was also forced to suppress the fact of miscarriage, since there was a marriage proposal. The nude photographs of the victim are still available with the petitioner and she was being psychologically blackmailed referring to them. It is true that she did not tell the learned Magistrate (while she was produced before the Magistrate on 17.5.2008) that she was subjected to rape etc. but she was taken to the court in the presence of parents and she must have been embarrassed to state those details, according to learned public prosecutor. 10. Learned public prosecutor also submitted that other persons are also involved in the offence. The second accused is the person who had taken the victim for miscarriage under BA 4025/08 6 instructions from the petitioner. His name is revealed but he could not be traced out so far. It has also come out that two women are involved in the offence who helped the defacto complainant at the hospital for miscarriage. They are not so far made accused. In such circumstances, if the petitioner is released on bail, it is submitted, it will be difficult to trace out the other accused who are involved in the offence. The investigation will be adversely affected. 11. On hearing both sides, on considering the manner in which the offence is committed and the nature of the investigation which is required to trace out the co-accused, the plight of the alleged victim etc., I am satisfied that it may not be proper to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. The petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE csl