IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2008 / 23RD ASHADHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 4439 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.454/08 OF KADAVANTHRA POLICE STATION APPLICANT/ACCUSED NO.2 --------------------------------------- THOMAS, S/O.KURIAN, PANDARATHUNDIYIL HOUSE, KADAVANTHRA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.P.M.RAFIQ RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING THE C.I. OF KADAVANTHRA POLICE STATION. BY DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION SRI.P.G.THAMPI THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 4439 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th July, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 366A, 376 and 34 of Indian Penal Code. The alleged victim is aged 17 years. Petitioner is the 2nd accused in the crime. According to prosecution, a minor girl aged 16 years was induced by the petitioner to go from her place of residence to the first accused's flat with intent/knowledge that it is likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse by the first accused. It is also alleged that she was raped by the first accused from his flat. On a statement made by the minor, a crime is registered against petitioner and the first accused. 3. According to prosecution, on 15.1.2007, the petitioner went to the de facto complainant, a girl aged 17 years, stating that the first accused asked him to admit her for a tuition. She accordingly accompanied him and on the way he had also bought food for her. On the pretext of taking her to the tuition centre, she was taken to the flat of the first accused. On reaching there, the first accused BA.4439/08 2 took her to the bed room. The first accused switched on the T.V and locked the door from outside and left the place. She was sexually harassed by the first accused before he went out. He came back in the evening and again sexually assaulted her. On the next day, the petitioner went to her and took her to the tuition class. After the tuition was over, she was taken to the flat of the petitioner again in a van belonging to petitioner. On that night also she was sexually assaulted by the first accused. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been in custody for the past 63 days. His further detention may not be required for purpose of investigation since charge sheet is already laid. Petitioner is prepared to abide by any conditions and he may not even come out of Thodupuzha, his native place, in case bail is granted. Learned counsel for petitioner also submitted that the petitioner is sick and documents are produced stating that he is under treatment for kidneystone and hence, he may be released on bail for getting proper treatment. 5. This petition is strongly opposed. Learned Director General of Prosecution argued that the petitioner has a star role in the activities of the first accused and he was working as a conscience-keeper of the first accuse. If the petitioner is released on bail, he can even destroy evidence which is already gathered in BA.4439/08 3 investigation. The criminal activities committed by the accused on the minor have already wounded the public conscience and if the petitioner is released on bail and if such release aids the destructin of the evidence so far gathered, it is likely that it will only deepen the injury caused to the society already. 6. On hearing both sides I find that the various aspects argued were were already considered in my earlier order dated 19.6.2008 in B.A.No.3901 of 2008, and hence those need not be repeated here. But two additional factors appear for consideration now: 1) 63 days of detention; and ii) the physical state of the petitioner. Learned Director General of Prosecution pointed out that if the petitioner so requires, any treatment will be made available to the petitioner through the jail authorities. The lapse of 63 days in custody also is not a ground to release the petitioner on bail. 7. On the facts and circumstances of this case, neither of the above two factors pointed out persuades me to grant bail to the petitioner. On hearing both sides, I find that the petitioner is likely to influence or threaten crucial witnesses and even the evidence so far collected may be destroyed or tampered with. It may decide the fate of the case itself, even before trial commences. BA.4439/08 4 8. I am also satisfied that the petitioner can be given proper treatment at any of the Medical Colleges or other hospitals through the jail authority but that cannot be made a ground to release the petitioner on bail. In a case of this nature, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. Hence, this petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.