IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2008 / 29TH ASWINA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6342 of 2008() ----------------------------- CMP.2385/2008 of J.M.F.C. - II, MAVELIKKARA CRIME NO.396/08 OF NOORANADU POLICE STATION PETITIONER ------------------------------ SUDHEESH, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.YESODHARAN, KATTAKKAREEKKAL HOUSE, PUTHUPALLI KUNNAM MURI, NOORANADU, MAVELIKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.R.PADMAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.M.S.BREEZE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 6342 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st October, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioner committed rape on his neighbour, who is the de facto complainant. He, along with his friend, had taken the de facto complainant and her friend to another house and committed rape on both the girls. His friend had also committed rape on the de facto complainant's friend. The victims were at the age of 12 ½ years at the time of offence. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner is absolutely innocent of the allegations made. The complaint was given only after 2 ½ years of the incident. The story was further developed by the girl, after giving First Information Statement, by including another person and another girl also in the icnident. It was alleged that another girl was also raped by the petitioner. 4. It was submitted that in the 'Mathrubhoomi' daily dated 24.8.2008, a report had been published stating that one “Chunakkara Naduvil Sudeesh” was arrested by the Dy.S.P in connection with this case. The petitioner is “Kattakkularikkal Sudeesh”. Chunakkara is also a nearby and the police deliberately BA.6342/08 2 aided the other Sudeesh, who was arrested by releasing him and without implicating him in the offence. But petitioner, who has the same name, is falsely implicated, it is submitted. 5. In the light of the submissions made, the case diary was called for and perused. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that no other “Sudeesh” is involved. It is true that a person by the same name was apprehended and he was shown to the alleged victims and they stated that he had not done anything against them. So, he was not proceeded against. Petitioner is involved in the crime and he is the neighbour of the de facto complainant. But, as far as the other girl is concerned, it is conceded that as per the medical evidence, there is no evidence of sexual intercourse. The medical certificate is available in the case diary. 6. On hearing both sides and on going through the case diary, I find that the petitioner is in custody for the past 72 days and I do not think that any further detention may not be necessary for the purpose of investigation. Though photographs of two persons by same name “Sudeesh” are available in the case diary, the case diary does not reveal that alleged victims were questioned with respect to the other “Sudeesh”. In such circumstances, I find that the petitioner can be granted bail on stringent conditions. BA.6342/08 3 Hence, the petitioner is granted bail on the following terms and conditions: i) Petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the court below. ii) Petitioner shall report before the investigating officer on every Monday between 10 AM and 1 PM until further orders. iii) Petitioner shall not influence or intimidate any witness or commit any offence while on bail and in case of breach of this condition, the bail is liable to be cancelled. Petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.