IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2010 / 29TH POUSHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 138 of 2010() -------------------------------------- CRIME NO.5/2010 OF BEKAL POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DIST. ..................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED ----------------------------------- SABAD K.M., S/O.MOIDEEN KUNHI, KATTAKKAL, KALANAD. BY ADV. SMT.T.SUDHAMANI RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.M.S. BREEZ. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/01/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 138 of 2010 ---------------------------- Dated this the 19th 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 accused in Crime No.5/2010 of Bekal Police Station, Kasaragod. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 366, 341 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The gist of the prosecution case is the following: On 28/12/2009, the de facto complainant was waiting in Kottikulam Bus Stop. At that time, the petitioner came there in a car. The petitioner is the brother of the de facto complainant's friend. It is alleged that under the pretext of giving a lift to the de facto complainant to her college, the petitioner induced her to board in the car. However, the accused did not stop the car near the college. Instead, she was taken to a place called Badiyadakka. By about 3 P.M., she was dropped in front of her college. It is also alleged that the accused had taken photographs of the de facto complainant in his mobile phone as well as digital camera. He made a B.A. No. 138/2010 2 threat that if the de facto complainant does not marry him, he would publicise the photographs of the de facto complainant after making sufficient morphing to make it appear that the photographs are nude photographs of the de facto complainant . 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that F.I.R. was registered in the case only on 2/1/2010, while the incident allegedly took place on 28/12/2009. Whether the delay in lodging F.I.R. is justifiable or whether it would affect the credibility of the prosecution case are all matters to be considered at the time of trial. The mere fact that there was delay in lodging the F.I.R. is not a ground for granting anticipatory bail. 5. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are grave in nature. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. To my mind, the petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm