IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2009 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 6995 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.174/2009 OF VELLAMUNDA POLICE STATION, WAYANAD PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED ------------------------------------------ ALI THOTTOLI, S/O. AMMAD HAJI THOTTOLI HOUSE, PORUNANA AMSOM, CHERUKARA DESOM, THARUVANA .P.O. MANANTHAVADY TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE-STATION HOUSE OFFICER, VELLAMUNDA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.6995 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of December, 2009 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.2 in Crime No.174 of 2009 of Vellamunda Police Station, Wayanad District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 366A, 376, 506(i) and 313 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Accused No.1 is the son of accused No.2. The allegation is that accused No.1 committed rape on the victim girl. She became pregnant and at the instance of the first accused miscarriage was caused. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the only allegation against the petitioner is that when the girl telephoned to his residence in order to contact the first accused, the petitioner threatened her with dire consequences. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegation made against the petitioner would at best constitute only the offence under Section 506(i) of BA No.6995/2009 2 the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that the offence under Section 506(i) is bailable. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the other offences alleged against accused No.1 are not applicable in the case of the second accused, going by the case put forward by the prosecution. 5. Thus, it is seen that the offences alleged against the petitioner are bailable. If so, the present application for anticipatory bail is not maintainable. The petitioner is at liberty to apply for regular bail. If an application for bail is filed, the learned Magistrate would have jurisdiction to deal with the same as held in Sukumari vs. State of Kerala (2001(1) KLT 22). Even otherwise, the only offence alleged against the petitioner being under Section 506(i) IPC, there will be no impediment for the learned Magistrate to consider the Bail Application. With the above observation, the Bail Application is closed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl