IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 6TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 15TH BHADRA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 6932 of 2011() ----------------------------- CBCID Crime No.111/CR/HHWII/EKM/11 (North Paravur Police Station Crime No.346 of 2011). PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.154: ---------------------------- BIJITH,AGED 26, S/O.RAJAN PILLAI,SREEVILASAM,ELIKODU P.O., MANJAMANGALAM KARA,VILAKUDI VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK,KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DETECTIVE INSPECTOR, CBCID HHW II,ERNAKULAM THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.MANU THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Bail Appln.No.6932 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 06th day of September, 2011 ORDER This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.154 in CBCID Crime No.111/CR/HHWII/EKM/11 (North Paravur Police Station Crime No.346 of 2011). 2. The offences alleged against the accused are under Sections 366-A, 354, 372, 373, 376 (2) (g), 506 (i), 342 and 202 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act. 3. The gist of the prosecution case is the following: The victim, a girl aged below 16 years, was taken to several places within the State and in the neighbouring States under force and threat and she was compelled to have sexual intercourse with several persons against her will and without her consent for the period from 3-5-2010. The First Information Statement was given by the victim on 7.3.2011. The father of the victim is a real estate broker and a person who supplies junior artists to film makers. On 3-5-2010, the Bail Appln.No.6932/2011 : 2 : victim was taken by her father to a hotel at Panampilly Nagar, Ernakulam, stating that they had to meet ‘film people’. After leaving the victim in the room in the hotel, father of the victim left the place. The victim was raped by the man who was in the room. Thereafter, on that date and on the following days, she was taken to several places in and around Ernakulam city, Mysore, Ooty, Thiruvananthapuram, Kannur, Chalakkudy, Athirappilly, Munnar, Bangalore, Thrissur, Mapranam, Coimbatore etc. On 1-1-2011, the father of the victim took her to Coimbatore and entrusted her to a man and woman. They took the victim to a house where she was locked. She was subjected to forceful sex by twelve persons who visited the house. The victim escaped from that house and after reaching her native place, she disclosed the matters to her paternal uncle and other relatives. They advised the victim to inform the matter to the police. 4. The allegation against the petitioner is the following:- He is a Tele film actor. Accused No.155 (Ismail), who was the production controller of the Tele film procured the girl promissing a role in the Tele film and brought her to Pathanapuram. Accused No.156 (Jaspal) was the director of Bail Appln.No.6932/2011 : 3 : the film. A house was taken on rent by Accused No.160 (Noushad) for the purpose of the Tele film. It is alleged that Accused Nos.154, 155 and 156 sexually abused the girl in the aforesaid house. The petitioner was arrested on 02/08/2011 and he was remanded to judicial custody. 5. As per the interim order dated 26th August, 2011, the petitioner was granted interim bail, till 04/09/2011 for solemnisation of the marriage of the petitioner on 01/09/2011. After marriage the petitioner was directed to report before the Superintendent of Central Prison, Viyoor before 10 A.M. on 05/09/2011. 6. Bail Applications filed by Ismail and Jaspal were dismissed. 7. Investigation is in progress. If the petitioner is released on bail at this stage, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. It is likely that the petitioner may intimidate and influence the prosecution witnesses and tamper with the evidence. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE skj