IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 76 of 2009()
1. SADASIVAN AGED 34, S/O. GOPALAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, THROUGHT THE STATION
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.BIJIMON C.CHERIAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :13/02/2009
O R D E R
K. HEMA, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
B.A. No. 76 of 2009
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this the 13thday of February, 2009
O R D E R
Petition for anticipatory bail.
2. The alleged offence is under section 376 IPC.
According to prosecution, de facto complainant was working in
Amrita Hospital. Petitioner went to the hospital and stated that
her father is sick and she was taken to a lodge at Vazhakulam
and rape was committed on her.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that
petitioner has not committed any offence. He is the friend of de
facto complainant’s father. On that day he was going to
Thodupuzha to meet his son in the boarding house. At that time
de facto complainant’s father gave some sweets and other
articles to be handed over to de facto complainant and he went
there and gave the articles. But later, on the same day, de facto
complainant was missing, when telephone call was made to her
by her father. To give an excuse, she gave a false complaint
against petitioner, it is submitted.
4. It is also submitted that name of petition is shown as
“Sivan”, but petitioner’s name is “Sadasivan”. Learned counsel
for petitioner also submitted that the incident allegedly occurred
on 6-11-2008 in the night, but she gave a complaint only on 8-
BA 76/2009 -2-
11-2008. He also submitted that age of the girl is shown as 19 in
the First Information Statement.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that as per the
allegations made, she was raped by petitioner on 6-11-2008 and
she had given reason for the delay in lodging the complaint. To
the doctor also she had made allegation that she was sexually
assaulted. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that as per the
school register, the age of the girl is 16 = years.
6. On hearing both sides, considering the serious nature
of the allegations made, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory
bail to petitioner. However, if petitioner has good ground to get
bail, on facts, under section437 Cr.P.C., this order will not stand
in the way of granting the same. Petitioner is bound to surrender
and co-operate with the investigation. Hence, the following order
is passed:-
1) Petitioner is directed to surrender before the
Investigating Officer without any delay and co-
operate with the investigation. Whether he
surrenders or not, police is at liberty to arrest
him and proceed in accordance with law.
2) No further application for anticipatory bail by
BA 76/2009 -3-
petitioner in this crime will be entertained by
this Court, since on the facts in this case, this
Court ordered that this is not a fit case to grant
anticipatory bail and any order to the contrary in
any subsequent anticipatory bail application will
amount to review, which is impermissible in law.
The petition is dismissed.
K.HEMA, JUDGE.
mn.