IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 7TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 18TH MAGHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 708 of 2008() ---------------------------- CRIME NO.4 OF 2008 OF THIRURANGADI POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER : ACCUSED: ------------------------- THAYYILAKANDI SHAFFI, S/O.MAMMU, VELIMUKKU AMSOM, P.O.VELIMUKKU. BY ADV. SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI SMT.C.G.PREETHA RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT/STATE: ------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ B.A.No.708 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of February, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner faces allegations in a crime registered under Section 376 I.P.C. The defacto complainant/victim is a housemaid employed in the house of the petitioner. She alleged that on 07.12.07, she, a 22 year old woman, was forced to have sexual intercourse with the petitioner. She lodged the complaint long later on 1.1.08. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent. False and vexatious allegations are now being raised. The petitioner may, in these circumstances, be granted anticipatory bail, it is prayed. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor does not oppose the application. The learned Public Prosecutor has read over to me the relevant portions in the case diary statement of the victim which clearly reveals that the petitioner and the defacto complainant have been indulging in sexual relationship for a period of about 2 years. B.A.No.708 of 2008 2 4. I shall not at this early stage embark on a detailed discussion about the acceptably of the allegations or the credibility of the data collected. Suffice it to say that I am satisfied that this is a fit case where directions under Section 438 Cr.P.C can be issued in favour of the petitioner. In the absence of opposition it is not necessary for me to advert to facts in any greater detail in this order. 5. In the result, the Bail Application is, allowed. The following directions are issued under Section 438 Cr.P.C. i) The petitioner shall appear before the learned Magistrate at 11 a.m on 14.02.2008. He shall be enlarged on regular bail on his executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate; ii) The petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer between 10 a.m and 5 p.m on 15.02.2008 and 16.02.2008. During this period, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to interrogate the petitioner in custody and take all necessary steps the proper conduct of the investigation including the conduct of a potency test. Thereafter the petitioner shall make himself available for B.A.No.708 of 2008 3 interrogation before the Investigating Officer between 10 a.m and 12 noon on all Mondays and Fridays for a period of two months and subsequently as and when directed by the Investigating Officer in writing to do so; iii) If the petitioner does not appear before the learned Magistrate as directed in clause (i), directions issued above shall thereafter stand revoked and the police shall be at liberty to arrest the petitioner and deal with him in accordance with law as if those directions were not issued at all; iv) If the petitioner were arrested prior to his surrender on 14.02.08 as directed in clause (1) above, he shall be released from custody on his executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) without any sureties undertaking to appear before the learned Magistrate on 14.02.08. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-