IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 2120 of 2009()
1. DR. K.LOKESHAN NAIR, AGED 49 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN
Dated :21/04/2009
O R D E R
V.K.MOHANAN, J.
---------------------------------------
B.A. No.2120 OF 2009
---------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of April, 2009
O R D E R
The petitioner who is the ninth accused in Crime
No.402/2008 of Elathur Police Station, which is registered for
the offences punishable under Sections 366(A), 376(g), 372
and 373 of I.P.C., seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The prosecution allegation is that the fourth
accused in this case used a minor girl for prostitution by
keeping her in the house of the fourth accused and also to
some other persons for the last one year. The further
allegation is that during such period, the fourth accused
presented the said minor girl for sexual intercourse with
accused Nos. 1 to 3. The allegation against the petitioner
herein is that he approached the fourth accused and asked her
to took the victim to the hospital, where the petitioner is
working and accordingly, the fourth accused took the girl to
the hospital and thereupon, the petitioner committed rape on
the girl.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
B.A.No.2120 of 2009
2
as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the petitioner being a medical practitioner, used to treat many
people in the hospital and probably the girl might have seen
the petitioner and due to mistaken identity, the name of the
petitioner is shown as an accused. It is also submitted that the
investigation is practically over and the custodial interrogation
of the petitioner is not necessary. The learned Public
Prosecutor stoutly opposed the prayer in the petition for
pre-arrest bail.
5. I have carefully considered the contentions advanced
by the counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public
Prosecutor. Though the petitioner is a medical practitioner, he
is involved in a heinous crime and the specific allegation
against the petitioner is that he had committed rape on a
minor girl provided by the fourth accused. I myself restrained
from discussing and entering into the merits of the contentions
advanced as it is likely to adversely affect either the
prosecution or the defence. Considering the entire facts and
circumstances in the case, I am of the view that it is not a fit
B.A.No.2120 of 2009
3
case to grant the relief as sought for by the petitioner for
pre-arrest bail.
In the result, there is no merit in the petition and
accordingly, the same is dismissed.
V.K.MOHANAN
JUDGE
pac