IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2010 / 23TH POUSHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 7307 of 2009 CRIME NO.794 OF 2009 OF KOTTARAKKARA POLICE STATION PETITIONER/IST ACCUSED ------------------------------------------ AJITH KUMAR,S/O.SUJATHA, VALAVIL MADATHIL VEEDU, NEDUVTHUR VILLAGE,KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.SAJU.S.A RESPONDENT: STATE -------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTARAKKARA POLICE STATION THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 7307 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 13th day of January, 2010 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.794 of 2009 of Kottarakkara Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 363, 366 and 376 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that the petitioner abducted the two daughters of the de facto complainant on 21.5.2009. The girls were aged 17 years and 15 years. It is stated that the second accused was in love with the elder daughter of the de facto complainant while the first accused was in love with the younger daughter. After taking the girls to Kannur, the elder daughter of the de facto complainant was sent back, since the second accused could not go to Kannur. The prosecution case is that the first accused and the younger daughter of the de facto complainant, thereafter, went to B.A. NO. 7307 OF 2009 :: 2 :: Bangalore. It is alleged that in Kannur and in Bangalore the petitioner had sexual relationship with the girl. As stated earlier, the girl was aged 15 years at the relevant time. 4. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the allegations levelled against the petitioner, I do not think that this is a fit case where anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required in the case. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. The petitioner is not entitled to any discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/