IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2010 / 2ND ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3579 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.388/10 OF PERAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, THRISSUR. (S): PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- SATHAR @ ABDUL SATHAR,S/O. LATE MOHAMMEDALI AIAS VAHID HAJI, AGED 27 YEARS, PUTHUVEETTIL PATTIKKARA, CHIRANELLUR.P.O. THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.AVM.SALAHUDIN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEK CHAND. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ---------------------------------------------- Bail Application No.3579 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 23rd June, 2010. O R D E R This petition is for bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 66E of the Information Technology Act. According to prosecution, petitioner gave some intoxicating drink to defacto complainant and took nude photographs in his mobile phone camera and showing the same and putting her under threat, he committed rape on her on several occasions. On a complaint given by the alleged victim on 26.5.2010, a crime was registered against petitioner. Petitioner was arrested on 27.5.2010 and he is in custody for the past 27 days. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the complainant is aged 34 years and petitioner is aged only 26 years. The allegations are made with respect to some incident which took place one year back. There is some contradiction in the remand report and the first information statement regarding consent. In the remand report, it is stated that defacto complainant was allegedly threatened and rape was committed BA NO.3579/10 2 whereas, as per the first information statement, she was given some intoxicating drink. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that investigation is in progress. If the petitioner is granted bail at this stage, it will adversely affect the investigation. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that it may not be proper to grant bail to petitioner at this stage, since it is likely to affect the investigation adversely, especially since offence under Section 66E of the Information Technology Act is involved, which requires detailed investigation. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. tgs