IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 31ST OCTOBER 2008 / 9TH KARTHIKA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6685 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO. 303/2008 OF VALLIKUNNAM POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- SHIHABUDEEN, AGED 22 YEARS, PANACHIVILAYIL HOUSE, VALLIKUNNAM VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A. No. 6685 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 31st day of October,2008 O R D E R Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. According to prosecution, Petitioner who is the neighbour of de facto complainant, sexually assaulted her daughter, who is aged 10 years, while de facto complainant had gone for work. Her husband who is a deaf and dumb person was present in the house. But the incident was noticed by her relative and the accused escaped. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that offence committed will not attract offence under section 377 IPC. Even if the entire allegations are accepted, those will not constitute carnal intercourse. Hence, petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted. The offence attracted will only be indecent assault under section 354 IPC, which is bailable, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the acts committed by petitioner are serious in nature. The victim is aged only 10 years. There is also a witness to the occurrence who went in search of the girl who happened to witness the occurrence. On seeing the witness, petitioner escaped from the scene. In an offence of this nature, it is not proper to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. BA 6685/08 -2- 5. On hearing both sides and on going through the case diary, I am satisfied that in the nature of the allegations made, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. The question whether the offence attracted is one under section 377 or 354 IPC need not be considered because the nature of allegations made in this case do not persuade me to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioner is at liberty to surrender before the Magistrate Court concerned and raise contentions regarding what offence is attracted in this case in an application for bail under section 437 or 439 IPC. The crime was registered on 6-10-2008, on the date of occurrence itself, but petitioner was not available for investigation. Hence, petitioner is directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer within seven days from today and co-operate with the investigation. Whether this direction is complied or not, police is at liberty to arrest petitioner at any time. With this direction, this petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. mn.