IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 20TH JUNE 2008 / 30TH JYAISHTA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 4132 of 2008() ----------------------------- CMP.3045/2008 IN CRIME NO.274/08 OF MUKKOM POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED : ----------------- K.ANOOP KUMAR S/O.K.T.VASUDEVAN NAIR AGED 24 YEARS, KUNNUMMEL HOUSE KANNADIKAL, VENGERI P.O., KOZHIKODE BY ADV. SRI.R.SUDHISH SMT.M.MANJU RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTING STATION HOUSE OFFICER MUKKOM POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------------------- B.A.No.4132 of 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of June, 2008 ORDER Petition for bail. 2. On the allegation that on 15.11.2007 at 1.30 p.m. the petitioner had carnal intercourse against the order of nature with the defacto complainant, who is a member of schedule caste community from the house of her friend and later, again from her own house, the First Information Statement was given by the defacto complaint, based on which crime was registered under Sections 377 and 354 and Section 3(i)(xii) of Schedule Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the defacto complainant is aged 30 years and the petitioner is aged 24 years. There was an affair between them. But the defacto complainant was pressurising the petitioner to marry her, for which the petitioner is not willing. Therefore, a false complaint is filed alleging offence of unnatural offence at a belated stage. The offence is alleged to have taken place in the year 2007. But, the complaint is filed only in 2008. BA 4132/08 2 4. The petitioner had filed B.A.No.3958/08 for anticipatory bail and the case was came up for consideration on 13.6.2008. It was posted for getting instructions by the public prosecutor. But, in the meanwhile, on 15.6.2008, on a Sunday, the petitioner was arrested. The petitioner is in custody from 16.6.2008 onwards. 5. Considering the nature of offence, this petition is opposed. Learned public prosecutor also submitted that 13th being a Friday, intimation would have been given to police only on Monday. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the ingredients Section 3(i)(xii) of Schedule Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act will not be attracted on the nature of the allegations made. The petitioner was taken into custody while the anticipatory bail application was pending. 6. Hence, on hearing both sides, I am satisfied that bail can be granted to the petitioner on stringent conditions. Petitioner is granted bail on the following terms and conditions: BA 4132/08 3 (i) Petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Magistrate Court, concerned. (ii) Petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer on every Monday and Thursday between 10 a.m. and 1 p.m. until further orders. (iii) Petitioner shall not enter the limits of the police station within which the alleged victim is residing. (iv) Petitioner shall not intimidate or threaten the alleged victim or witnesses and in case of breach of this condition while on bail, bail is liable to be cancelled. The petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE csl