Ajith Kumar vs State Of Kerala Represented By The … on 13 January, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 7307 of 2009()


1. AJITH KUMAR,S/O.SUJATHA,VALAVIL MADATHIL
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.SAJU.S.A

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN

 Dated :13/01/2010

 O R D E R
                         K.T.SANKARAN, J.
            ------------------------------------------------------
                      B.A. NO. 7307 OF 2009
            ------------------------------------------------------
            Dated this the 13th 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 first accused

in Crime No.794 of 2009 of Kottarakkara Police Station.

2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under

Sections 363, 366 and 376 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal

Code.

3. The prosecution case is that the petitioner abducted the

two daughters of the de facto complainant on 21.5.2009. The girls

were aged 17 years and 15 years. It is stated that the second

accused was in love with the elder daughter of the de facto

complainant while the first accused was in love with the younger

daughter. After taking the girls to Kannur, the elder daughter of the

de facto complainant was sent back, since the second accused could

not go to Kannur. The prosecution case is that the first accused and

the younger daughter of the de facto complainant, thereafter, went to

B.A. NO. 7307 OF 2009

:: 2 ::

Bangalore. It is alleged that in Kannur and in Bangalore the

petitioner had sexual relationship with the girl. As stated earlier, the

girl was aged 15 years at the relevant time.

4. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the

case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the allegations

levelled against the petitioner, I do not think that this is a fit case

where anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. Custodial

interrogation of the petitioner is required in the case. If anticipatory

bail is granted to the petitioner, it would adversely affect the proper

investigation of the case. The petitioner is not entitled to any

discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure.

For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed.

(K.T.SANKARAN)
Judge

ahz/