Loading...

Mohan P.Mathews vs State Of Kerala on 24 March, 2010

Kerala High Court
Mohan P.Mathews vs State Of Kerala on 24 March, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 1684 of 2010()


1. MOHAN P.MATHEWS,S/O.MATHEWS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



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

2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.VINOY VARGHESE KALLUMOOTTILL

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

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

 Dated :24/03/2010

 O R D E R
                         K.T.SANKARAN, J.
            ------------------------------------------------------
                      B.A. NO. 1684 OF 2010
            ------------------------------------------------------
            Dated this the 24th day of March, 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 accused No.2 in

Crime No.972 of 2009 of Thiruvalla Police Station, Pathanamthitta

District.

2. The offence alleged against the accused is under Section

376 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Originally, the case was registered under the caption

“woman missing”. The girl was a working girl. Since she did not

return to her house on 5.11.2009, her father reported the matter to

the police. The police found out the girl. It is stated that she was in

love with the first accused. Under the pretext that they could spend

some time merrily, she was taken on a bike by the first accused.

Pretending that the bike had undergone some break down, it was

stopped near a bridge, where house boats were available. She was

cleverly taken inside the house boat. At that time, two or more

B.A. NO. 1684 OF 2010

:: 2 ::

persons were available in the house boat. They stated that the room

of the first accused was a neighbouring one. The girl was taken to

that room. The allegation is that she was raped by the first accused.

Thereafter, the first accused went on his bike. The girl was taken in

a car. In the car, she was sexually abused by the second accused.

She was taken to a lodge, where she was raped by the other

accused.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

prosecution version is not true. There is delay in lodging the First

Information Statement. It is further stated that the story put forward

by the de facto complainant and also the victim cannot be believed,

that there was no incident as alleged by the prosecution and that

there is no material to connect the petitioner with the offence.

5. While disposing of an application for anticipatory bail,

meticulous analysis of all the facts and circumstances cannot be

made. Such a course can be adopted and findings could be

rendered only after trial. More over, if any finding or observation is

made while disposing of the application for anticipatory bail, it would

cause prejudice either to the prosecution or to the defence.

B.A. NO. 1684 OF 2010

:: 3 ::

6. I am not dealing with the contention raised by the counsel

for the petitioner that there was delay in lodging the First Information

Statement. That is a matter to be considered by the court at the time

of trial. At the same time, it is to be noted that the father of the girl

reported the matter to the police on the next day. In the First

Information Statement, it is mentioned that he had gone to the place

where the girl was working and enquired with the persons who were

found there as to where the girl had gone. He has made other

enquiries also. The educational background and the social

background of the victim as well as the de facto complainant are also

to be taken note of in this context. I am not inclined to accept the

contention of the petitioner that there are no materials, prima facie,

to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence.

7. In a grave offence of this nature, I do not think that

anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. Custodial

interrogation of the petitioner may be required in the case. I am of

the view that this is not a fit case where anticipatory bail can be

granted to the petitioner. Going by the allegations levelled against

the petitioner, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to the

B.A. NO. 1684 OF 2010

:: 4 ::

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/

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information