IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST JULY 2010 / 30TH ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 4287 of 2010() ------------------------------------------ (CRIME NO.433/2010 OF PALAKKAD TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT) ................ APPLICANT/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------- SANTHOSH BABU, AGED 29 YEARS S/O. M.C.KUNJIKUTTAN, MANDUPAL HOUSE, AYYAM PARAMBU,AGATHIYOOR.P.O., KUNNAMKULAM. BY ADVS. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU, SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN. RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESETING THE S.I. OF POLICE, PALAKKAD TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. V.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.HEMA, J. ------------------ B.A. No. 4287 of 2010 ----------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of July, 2010 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 376 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioner committed rape on the de facto complainant on several occasions, promising to marry her. Though, thereafter, he married her, another marriage was fixed for him and thereby, he committed cheating. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that no offences under Sections 376 or 420 of the Indian Penal Code are made out in this case. A reading of the F.I. Statement itself will show that sexual act was committed with the consent of the de facto complainant. The only allegation is that consent was obtained on promise to marry the de facto complainant. But according to the de facto complainant herself, the petitioner married her. So there is no question of cheating by petitioner, the consent having been obtained on promise to marry and having married her. It cannot be said that the act committed B.A. No. 4287 / 2010 2 will constitute the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioner is not married till now. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that as per the allegations in the complaint, petitioner married de facto complainant but later, he decided to marry another person. When the de facto complainant came to know that petitioner decided to marry another person, enquiries were made about petitioner. Thereafter, he stopped contacting the de facto complainant. It is true that the sexual act was allegedly committed on the promise to marry the de facto complainant. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioner may be made available for interrogation. 5. On hearing both sides and on going through the case diary and on considering the various aspects discussed above, I find that anticipatory bail can be granted. De facto complainant appears may seek other remedies, as per law. The following order is passed: 1. Petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer within 7 days from today and co-operate with the investigation. B.A. No. 4287 / 2010 3 2. Petitioner shall, in the event of his arrest be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs. 25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer on the following conditions: i). Petitioner shall report before the investigating officer as and when directed and co-operate with the investigation. ii). Petitioner shall not influence or intimidate any witness or tamper with the evidence. 3. This order will be in force only for a period of 20 days from today. Whether petitioner is arrested or not, he shall seek regular bail from the court concerned, within such time. This petition is allowed. K. HEMA, JUDGE ln