IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 7626 of 2009()
1. SHAKKEER, AGED 25 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.UNNI. K.K. (EZHUMATTOOR)
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :/ /
O R D E R
K.T. SANKARAN, J.
---------------------------
B.A. No.7626 of 2009
------------------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of January, 2010
O R D E R
This is an application for anticipatory bail under
Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner
is the accused in Crime No.207/2009 of Panoor Police Station,
Kannur.
2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are
under Sections 376, 405, 420 and 493 of the Indian Penal
Code.
3. The de facto complainant filed a complaint before
the court of the additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Thalasseri. That complaint was forwarded to the police under
Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The crime
was accordingly registered.
4. The gist of the allegation made against the
petitioner is the following: The de facto complainant was
residing under the protection of her mother and brothers. The
petitioner fell in love with the de facto complainant. He made
her to believe that he would marry her. She was made to
B.A. No.7626/2009
2
believe that the petitioner is financially very sound and he is
employed in a Gulf country. The petitioner came to India on
10/2/2009. The de facto complainant was told by him that the
marriage was to be solemnised immediately. Stating that ‘nikkah’
was to be registered, several blank papers were got signed from
the de facto complainant. The de facto complainant insisted that
the marriage should be conducted in accordance with the
religious rites. On 30/4/2009, there was nobody else in the
house of the de facto complainant. The petitioner had sexual
contact with her on several occasions. The petitioner assured
that he would marry the de facto complainant in accordance with
the religious rites. He also made her to believe that the marriage
would be registered in accordance with law. The petitioner
brought one person describing as Usthad of a mosque and
several papers were got signed from the de facto complainant
under the pretext that it was a document intended for
registration of marriage. The de facto complainant was thereafter
taken to several places including a lodge and the petitioner had
sexual relationship with her. The petitioner demanded Rs.5 lakhs
B.A. No.7626/2009
3
from the de facto complainant stating that the amount was
required for the petitioner to conduct a business. The mother of
the de facto complainant mortgaged her immovable property in
the District Co-operative Bank and arranged a sum of Rs.2 lakhs.
The petitioner told the de facto complainant that the amount
would not be sufficient and ornaments of the de facto
complainant weighing 20 sovereigns were also taken by the
petitioner. The petitioner also insisted that he required a Ford
Icon Car for the purpose of his business. That request was also
complied with by the de facto complainant. Later, the behaviour
of the petitioner changed. He stealthily removed all the relevant
documents evidencing the relationship between the parties.
Later, on another occasion, when the de facto complainant
insisted that customary marriage should be conducted, the
petitioner attacked and manhandled her. He also disclosed that
he had not married her and he had stated otherwise to the de
facto complainant only to enjoy her sexually. The petitioner also
declared that he did not want the de facto complainant
thereafter. It is alleged that the de facto complainant was
B.A. No.7626/2009
4
threatened by the petitioner with dire consequences, had she
taken any steps against the petitioner.
5. In the nature of the allegations levelled against the
petitioner, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to the
discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. Very serious allegations are levelled against the
petitioner. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it
would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case.
Custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be required in the
case.
For the aforesaid reasons, I am not inclined to grant bail to
the petitioner. Bail Application is accordingly dismissed.
K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE
scm