IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2011 / 26TH SRAVANA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 6078 of 2011() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.111 OF 2011 OF CBCID HHWII, ERNAKULAM) PETITIONER/ACCUSED ------------------------------ DR.HARY, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.A.A.ABDUL AZEEZ, 101,MEENAKSHI APARTMENT DEEVAN'S ROAD, PALLYIL LANE, ERNAKULAM BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.T.K.SHAIJ RAJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM(CRIME NO-346/2011 OF NORTH PARAVOOR POLICE STATION,NOW RE-REGISTERED AS 111/2011 OF C.B.C.I.C.H.H.W.II) BY P.P.SRI.V.MANU THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------- B.A. No.6078 OF 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of August, 2011 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Petitioner is accused No.90 in Crime No.111 of 2011 of C.B.C.I.D H.H.W.II, Ernakulam. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 366-A, 354, 376(2)(g), 506(I), 342 and 202 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. 3. The petitioner is a doctor working in Lourd's Hospital, Ernakulam. He owns a flat near the hospital. The allegation is that he procured the victim girl with the help of Subaida (accused No.13). The allegation is that the petitioner took them to his flat at Pachalam. The victim was sexually B.A. No.6078 OF 2011 2 abused by the petitioner, Nazeer (accused No.91), and Padmakumar (accused No.92). 4. The petitioner apprehends arrest. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that going by the first statement given by the girl to the police, and also her statement under Section 164, the complicity of the petitioner is not established. The counsel also relies upon the remand report in respect of accused No.92, Padmakumar to show that there was no allegation that accused No.90 had sexually abused the victim. 5. I have gone through the relevant statements made by the victim and also the other relevant records. 6. Prima facie, it cannot be said that there is no material to connect the petitioner with the offence. The offence alleged is very serious in nature. The allegation is that the victim aged 16 years was sexually abused by about 150 people, after she became a prey in a sex racket. 7. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are B.A. No.6078 OF 2011 3 serious in nature. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to get the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The matter requires investigation. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it would adversely affect the proper and smooth investigation of the case. For the aforesaid reason, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. cms