IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2010 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 2723 of 2010() ----------------------------------------- (CRIME NO.119/2010 OF ULLICKAL POLICE STATION, KANNUR) PETITIONER/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------- PUTHIYAVEETTIL MANOHARAN, S/O. BALAN, NUCHIYAD AMSOM DESOM, NUCHIYAD P.O. BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------- STATE - STATION HOUSE OFFICE, ULLICKAL POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. V.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K. HEMA, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 2723 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 25th day of May, 2010 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioner committed rape on the de facto complainant, while the husband was in judicial custody in connection with a case. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the incident was reported only after one year of the incident. The alleged victim is a married lady aged more than 40 years. This case is falsely foisted due to political vengeance. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the allegation in the complaint itself would reveal that the incident would have happened with the consent of the de facto complainant and only because husband has seen and he divorced her that a complaint of this nature is filed. 4. This petition is not opposed. As per the allegations, de facto complainant was subjected to forceful sexual intercourse by the petitioner, when her husband was in judicial custody. B.A. No. 2723 of 2010 2 When the husband was released she went to her house on 10.03.2010 while so, petitioner forcefully took away de facto complainant, from her house in the night but this was witnessed by the de facto complainant's husband. She was divorced. 5. On hearing both sides, I find no material before me to show that this is a politically motivated case. The allegations are made that the petitioner committed rape on de facto complainant without her consent. At this stage, it cannot be said that there was lack of consent etc. In the above circumstances, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail. Petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE ln