IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN THURSDAY, THE 21ST MAY 2009 / 31ST VAISAKHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 2608 of 2009() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.204/09 OF BINANIPURAM POLICE STATION) .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: -------------------- KAMARUDHEEN, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.ALAVI, PULICKANETTU HOUSE, PANAYIKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.RAJEEV.K.S RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. K.MEERA THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.05.2009,THE COURT ON 21.05.2009 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: spc P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. ====================================== B.A.No.2608 of 2009 ====================================== Dated this the 21st day of May 2009 ORDER Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.204 of 2009 of Binanipuram Police Station for the offence under Section 377 IPC. Apprehending arrest, detention and torture at the hands of the investigating officer, the petitioner sought an order under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. by a petition, Crl.M.C.No.823 of 2009 before the Sessions Judge, Ernakulam. By order dated 4.5.2009, the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the petition. Now seeking the same relief, the petitioner has come up before this Court. 2. Having heard either side, I find that the case was registered on the basis of an allegation that at 2.30 p.m. on 18.4.2009, the petitioner had committed carnal intercourse against the order of nature, on a boy aged 6 years. In the event, if there is any attempt on the side of the respondent to arrest the petitioner, it is for good reasons. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was in any way falsely implicated. I find that this is not a fit case to grant relief under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. In the result, this petition is dismissed. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE css/