IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 8758 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.122/2011 OF ATHOLI POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE SC NO.431/2011 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, KOYILANDY .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED --------------------------- PUSHPAKARAN, AGED 53 YEARS, VARAYALANKANDY HOUSE,MODAKKALLUR, KODASREI,ATHOLI, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.SREEJITH SRI.P.R.SREEJITH SRI.M.PROMODH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.R.RENJITH THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A.No.8758 of 2011 --------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of November, 2011 O R D E R This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.122 of 2011 of Atholi Police Station, Kozhikode District. 2. The case is now pending as Sessions Case No.431 of 2011 on the file of the court of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Koyilandy. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The victim is none other than his daughter. The allegation is that she was sexually exploited by the petitioner while she was aged 12 years onwards. The petitioner moved an application for bail before the court of Session, Kozhikode and that application was dismissed by the order dated 10th September, 2011. Paragraphs 3 to 5 of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge read as follows : BA 8758/11 2 “3. On hearing both sides and on a perusal of the reports, this court feels it not safe and proper to release the petitioner on bail in the particular facts and circumstances where the larger interests of the society, and also the interests of the family of the accused require his continued detention in prison till trial of the whole case is over. 4. The offence alleged against the accused is under Section 376 IPC, and the victim of offence is none other than his daughter. Now, his wife has also proceeded against him in criminal action with a complaint under Section 498A IPC, and the said case is pending before the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Perambra. In such a circumstance, there is the definite possibility of the material witnesses including the victim of offence being threatened, or influenced, or otherwise won over, if the accused is released on bail. The larger interest of society, and also the interest of the family of the accused demand that the accused be detained in custody till trial of the case is over, and it is absolutely necessary to ensure a proper and fair trial without being obstructed in any manner by anybody. 5. The allegation against the accused is BA 8758/11 3 that he had subjected his own daughter to sexual intercourse on many occasions, and when the family turned against him, he started harassing his other family members also, including his wife. Such a person does not deserve bail, and it is absolutely necessary for a proper and effective trial that the accused be detained in prison till the case itself if tried and disposed of.” 3. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted, on instructions, that the case was posted for trial to 1.11.2011. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case is now posted to 7th November, 2011 for trial. In these circumstances, I do not think it proper to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE csl