IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI TUESDAY, THE 4TH MAY 2010 / 14TH VAISAKHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 2748 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRMP.5003/2010 of J.M.F.C.-III, PUNALUR CRIME NO.341/2010 of Kunnicode Police Station in Pathanamthitta District .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED :- -------------------------------------- ANEESH, AGED 23, S/O.MOHANAN, ALINAPADINJATTATIL, KOTTUKULANJIKARODU, PENNUKARA MURI, ALA VILLAGE, CHERYANNUR TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.AJITH MURALI RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT :- --------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: JVT P.Q. BARKATH ALI, J. ================ B.A. No.2748 of 2010 ================ Dated this the 4th day of May, 2010 O R D E R This is a bail application filed by the accused in Crime No.341 of 2010 of Kunnicode Police Station in Pathanamthitta District under Section 439 of Cr.PC. 2. The allegation against the petitioner is that, on 11.4.2010 at 8.45 hours, he promised to marry the de facto complainant and has abducted the de facto complainant, a minor girl aged 161/2 by inducing her to go from her house at Avaneeswaram, Vilakkudy to his house at Ala, Chengannoor and kept her in his house till 14.4.2010 and thereby committed offence under Section 366 IPC. 3. The petitioner was arrested on 14.4.2010 and is in remand thereafter. The Judicial First Class Magistrate Court – III, Punalur has rejected his bail application. 4. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner and B.A. No.2748 of 2010 -2- the de facto complainant, minor girl are in love and they have decided to marry, that the girl given a statement before the learned Magistrate stating that she was not abducted by the accused and she went with the petitioner on her own wishes. 5. Notice given to the learned Public Prosecutor. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. This petition is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor. 6. For the following reasons, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. The de facto complainant is the father of the minor girl. He was also represented by a counsel. He has stated that the matter has been settled between the parties. Further, the minor girl, the victim of the case has given a statement before the Magistrate that she was not abducted by the accused. In these circumstances, I feel that the petitioner can be released on bail on conditions. 7. In the result, the petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty B.A. No.2748 of 2010 -3- Five Thousand only) with two solvent sureties for like sum each to the satisfaction of the trial court on the following conditions:- 1) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required. 2) The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence. In case of violation of any of the aforesaid conditions, the lower court can cancel his bail. P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE. jvt