IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 20TH JUNE 2011 / 30TH JYAISHTA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 4634 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.638/2007 OF PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------- AHAMMED, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.MOHAMMED, SHAMNA MANZIL, CHALKARA HOUSE, P.O.ADAMPADY, KASARAGOD TALUK, KASARAGOD DIST. BY ADV. SRI.MURUGAN P.V. RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANTS ------------------------------------ 1. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER, DISTRICT SPECIAL BRANCH, KOLLAM. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. ============================= Bail Application No.4634 of 2011 ================================ Dated this the 20th day of June, 2011 ORDER Petitioner, who is the 2nd accused in Crime No.638 of 2007 of Pathanamthitta Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 120(b),417,420,366,342,376(2)(g) read with 34 IPC and Section 10 read with 24(b)(f)(g) of the Immigration Act and Section 5 of the JTP Act, seeks his enlargement on bail. The petitioner was arrested on 25.5.2011. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application contending inter alia that the de facto complainant who is a lady was given a visa to go abroad and subsequently she was taken abroad and while there she was forced to have sex with several persons in the presence of A1 to A3. 3. Mainly because 3rd accused in the case, who is a lady had been granted bail and that there are several other unsubstantiated complaints against the de facto complainant of having committed various crimes alleged therein, it does not follow that the petitioner and others can indulge in the nefarious flesh trade. B.A. No.4634 of 2011 2 4. Having regard to the gravity of the offences, nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, the relative conduct of the parties, the extent of the injury sustained, the propensities of the petitioner, the sentiments of the near relatives of the victim and the other facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that if the petitioner is released on bail, he will definitely influence and intimidate the prosecution witnesses. There is also the likelihood of the petitioner making himself scarce and fleeing from justice. I am, therefore, not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. This petition is accordingly dismissed. V. RAMKUMAR, (JUDGE) sj