High Court Kerala High Court

John vs State Of Kerala on 20 October, 2009

Kerala High Court
John vs State Of Kerala on 20 October, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 5332 of 2009()


1. JOHN, S/O. STEPHEN, AGED 32 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

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

 Dated :20/10/2009

 O R D E R
                          K.T.SANKARAN, J.
             ------------------------------------------------------
                      B.A. NO. 5332 OF 2009
             ------------------------------------------------------
            Dated this the 20th day of October, 2009


                                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.267 of 2009 of Aryancode Police Station.

2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under

Sections 450 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(v)

of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act.

3. When the Bail Application came up for hearing on

23.9.2009, liberty was afforded to the petitioner to appear before the

investigating officer. Accordingly, he appeared before the

investigating officer.

4. The investigating officer has filed a statement dated

15.10.2009 stating that the de facto complainant has filed a petition

before the investigating officer stating that she is being threatened by

B.A. NO. 5332 OF 2009

:: 2 ::

some persons in connection with the registration of the crime. It is

also stated that on earlier occasions, there was a threat to kill the de

facto complainant.

5. 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 the petitioner is

entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it

would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case.

The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed.

(K.T.SANKARAN)
Judge

ahz/