IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 5TH MARCH 2010 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 1282 of 2010() ----------------------------- CEIME NO.87/10 OF BEKAL POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 -------------------------------------------- ASSAINAR, S/O.MUHAMMED KUNHI,RESIDING AT PPUTHERIADUKOM HOUSE,CHATTAMCHAL,THEKKIL PO, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.T.SUDHAMANI RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- 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 05/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.1282 of 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of March, 2010 O R D E R This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.1 in Crime No.87 of 2010 of Bekal Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 366A, 376, 506(i) and 109 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that while the victim girl was studying in the 9th standard, she was subjected to rape by the petitioner. She was threatened to death and therefore, she did not disclose that fact to anybody. Again, on another occasion, she was raped and her nude photographs were taken by the first accused in his mobile phone. Though the victim girl joined in another school, the first accused threatened the de facto complainant misusing the nude photographs and he continued to commit the offence. Even after the victim girl went to Tamil Nadu for her studies, the first accused did not leave her. He continued his heinous criminal activities on the girl. Finding no other escape, the girl reported the matter to the police. Thus the crime was registered. The petitioner was arrested on 10.2.2010 BA No.1282/2010 2 and he was remanded to judicial custody. 4. The investigation of the case is not over. The second accused, who is a close friend of the first accused, is not arrested. The de facto complainant has two younger sisters. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the first accused had made a threat to destroy the whole family. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor very vehemently opposed the Bail Application and submitted that if the petitioner is released on bail, it will be a threat to the family consisting of the de facto complainant, her two sisters and her mother. It is submitted that the petitioner would tamper with the evidence and influence and intimidate the witnesses, if he is released on bail. I am of the view that the apprehension voiced by the learned Public Prosecutor is sustainable, in the facts and circumstances of the case. I do not think that the petitioner can be released on bail at this stage. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl