IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2009 / 29TH ASWINA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 6081 of 2009() ---------------------------------------- CRMP.2141/2009 of DISTRICT COURT, KOTTAYAM CRIME NO.336/2009 OF PONKUNNAM POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM. .................... PETITIONER /1ST ACCUSED ------------------------------------------- SHAJI P.C. S/O. CHELLAPPAN, PLAPPALLIL HOUSE, EDATHAMPARAMBU, PONKUNNAM P.O., CHIRAKKADAVU. BY ADV. SRI.P.BABU KUMAR SRI.C.K.MOHANAN RESPONDENT/ STATE: ------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (CRIME NO.336/2009 OF PONKUNNAM POLICE STATION) SRI. TEKCHAND, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 6081 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 21st day of October, 2009 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.336 of 2009 of Ponkunnam Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 328 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act. 3. The gist of the prosecution case is the following: The de facto complainant was an employee in Wintec Computers run by the petitioner. The allegation is that after administering some intoxicating substances or sedatives in food and drinks, the petitioner subjected her to sexual intercourse. Later, he took the nude photographs of the de facto complainant. She was being threatened by the petitioner showing the nude photographs to her and he indulged in sexual intercourse with her against her will. The petitioner even threatened that the nude photographs would be published. The de facto complainant was appointed as a teacher in a school. Later, on account of the B.A. No. 6081/ 2009 2 harassment by the petitioner, she had to resign that job and come back again to the computer centre of the petitioner. Sexual harassment continued. Later, she she got a job in Ernakulam. There, she met another man and fell in love with him. That man proposed to marry her. The allegation is that the petitioner had shown the nude photographs of the petitioner to that man and thereupon the marriage proposal was withdrawn. It is also alleged that the petitioner published the nude photographs in mobile phones and internet. The petitioner was arrested on 20/8/2009 and he was remanded to judicial custody. The petitioner moved an application for bail before the learned Sessions Judge, which was dismissed as per the order dated 5/10/2009. The learned Sessions Judge accepted the submissions made by the learned Public Prosecutor that if the petitioner is released on bail, he would intimidate and influence the witnesses and interfere with the smooth investigation of the case. 4. Taking into account the facts and circumstances, the nature of the offence and the allegations levelled against the B.A. No. 6081/ 2009 3 petitioner, I am of the view that the petitioner cannot be granted bail at this stage. The investigation is not over. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that some more vital materials are to be collected in the course of investigation. It is submitted that if the petitioner is released on bail at this stage, he would tamper with the evidence, influence and intimidate the witnesses and interfere with the course of investigation. In view of the intricate nature of the materials to be collected to prove the offence and also taking into account the various incidents alleged to have been taken place, it cannot be said that the apprehension voiced by the learned Public Prosecutor is without substance. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm