IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 27TH MAGHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 824 of 2010() --------------------------------------- CR. NO.9/2010 OF ALAKODE POLICE STATION, KANNUR DT. .................. PETITIONER/ACCUSED ---------------------------------- REJITH @ KOCHUMON, S/O.MOHANAN, AGED 26 YEARS, THENGAZHIKATH VEEDU, EDATHARA, KADAKKAL TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.V.A.SATHEESH, MR.V.T.MADHAVANUNNI. RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT -------------------------------------------- STATE, THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, SREEKANDAPURAM POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT, (CRIME NO.9/2010 OF ALAKODE POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT), REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.M.S. BREEZ. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/02/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 824 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of February, 2010 O R D E R This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in Cr. No.9/2010 of Alakode Police Station. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that the petitioner enticed the victim girl aged about 20 years, took her from her house to several places and had sexual intercourse with her against her consent. The petitioner was arrested on 17/1/2010 and he was remanded to judicial custody. 4. I have perused the Case Diary. The statement of the victim girl reveals the following facts: She lost her father. Her mother is a coolie. They purchased a bed on instalment basis from P.K. Agencies. The instalments were being collected every week. Two months before the incident, the petitioner came to the house of the victim girl for the collection of the instalments. Thereafter, he used to come for B.A. No. 824 /2010 2 collection. The petitioner got acquaintance with the victim. He made her to believe that his father and mother died in an accident and that he has only three brothers. The victim had sympathy towards the petitioner. They exchanged the mobile phone numbers. The petitioner used to contact the victim. He offered to marry her. During the night of 3/1/2010, the petitioner contacted the victim over mobile phone and asked her to go to Taliparamba on the next day. He assured that he would marry the victim at the Registrar's Office, Taliparamba on 4/1/2010. She was also asked to take money for meeting necessary expenses. While going to Taliparamba, she withdrew Rs.10,000/- deposited by her in a Co-operative Bank. She met the petitioner. Making her to believe that the witnesses had not turned up, she was requested to accompany him to kannur. After reaching Kannur, the petitioner stated that they could go to Kozhikode. They went to Kozhikode. After reaching Kozhikode, the petitioner made the victim to believe that they could go to the house of the petitioner’s uncle. They went in a bus. By about 8.30 P.M, they reached Palakkad. They stayed in a lodge. She was subjected to B.A. No. 824 /2010 3 forcible sex during that night. On the next day, they went to Palani and stayed in a lodge. Thereafter, she was taken to a place near Sharavana Poika. A rolled gold tali in a rolled gold chain was tied on her neck, standing in front of a temple, making her to believe that he had married her. The victim had a gold chain weighing one sovereign with her. That was taken by the petitioner and he pledged it in Muthoot financiers for Rs.7,500/-. That money was taken by him. Later, they stayed in a room on the side of an institution run by a keralite, till 14/1/2010. During all these days, the petitioner had sexual contact with the girl. 5. While they were at Palani, the victim contacted her mother’s sister at Aluva over phone. At that time, the victim girl realized that the petitioner is a married man and that the petitioner was duped by him. Under some pretext or other, the petitioner was taken by the victim to Aluva. On giving information to the police, the petitioner was arrested. 6. The investigation is not over. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to any discretionary relief under Section 439 B.A. No. 824 /2010 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If the petitioner is released on bail at this stage, it is most likely that he would make himself scarce and try to tamper with the evidence. It is not proper to release the petitioner on bail until the investigation is over. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm