IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 21ST NOVEMBER 2011 / 30TH KARTHIKA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 9055 of 2011() ------------------------------------- IN CRIME NO.331/2011 OF CHITTARIKKAL POLICE STATION PETITIONER (S):/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- G.SURESH BABU, S/O.GOPI V.S., RESIDING AT CHITTARIKKAL, VADAKEYIL HOUSE, CHITTARIKKAL VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.ARUNKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT/STATE ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031. 2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, (CRIME NO.331/2011 OF CHITTARIKKAL POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT). BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.K. RAJEEV THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/11 /2011 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: DS K.T.SANKARAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Bail Appl. NO. 9055 OF 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 21st day of November, 2011 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.331 of 2011 of the Chittarikkal Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1) (XII) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 3. The defacto complainant belongs to 'Malavettuva' community, which is a Scheduled Tribe. It is alleged that about 12 years back, the petitioner and the defacto complainant fell in love and the petitioner promised to marry her. The defacto complainant was sexually exploited by the B.A.No.9055/2011 -2- petitioner. She became pregnant and delivered of a child. The petitioner offered to marry her after the marriage of his sister was solemnized. The petitioner and the defacto complainant lived together for 8 years. Three children were born in their relationship. After the 3rd child was born, the petitioner abandoned her and married another women. It is alleged that being in a position to dominate the will of the defacto complainant, the petitioner used that position to exploit sexually the defacto complainant, a woman belonging to a Scheduled Tribe, to which she would not have otherwise agreed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the defacto complainant filed another petition against one Jose which was registered as Crime No. 332/2011. In that crime, the very same defacto complainant alleged that Jose promised to marry her and he had sexual relationship with her and a child was born in that relationship. B.A.No.9055/2011 -3- 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the very case put forward in Crime No.332/2011 would indicate that the defacto complainant was leading a licentious life. 6. In the present case, it is not necessary to look into the allegations made in Crime No.332/2011. The question to be considered is whether prima facie, the allegations constitute an offence under Section 3(1)(XII) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. On a perusal of the FI statement, prima facie, such an offence is made out. If so, the bar under Section 18 of the Act would apply and the Bail Application would not be maintainable. Accordingly, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE. ds