High Court Kerala High Court

Mohanan vs State Of Kerala on 22 July, 2008

Kerala High Court
Mohanan vs State Of Kerala on 22 July, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 4317 of 2008()


1. MOHANAN, AGED 25 YEARS,
                      ...  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 MRS. Justice K.HEMA

 Dated :22/07/2008

 O R D E R
                                    K. HEMA, J.
                 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                               B.A.No. 4317 of 2008
                  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                    Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2008

                                       O R D E R

Application for anticipatory bail.

2. The alleged offence is under section 376 IPC. Learned counsel

for the petitioner submitted that the defacto-complainant is of a loose moral

character and she had filed a similar complaint against another person by

name Manu about one year prior to the lodging of the F.I.R. in this case. It

is also pointed out that as per the allegation in the First Information

Statement itself she had sexual intercourse with the petitioner on several

occasions on the promise that he will marry her. It is also submitted that the

defacto-complainant is aged 20 years.

3. This application is opposed. The learned Public Prosecutor

submitted that in the First Information Statement itself it is alleged that the

petitioner had committed rape on the defacto-complainant on 15-3-2008. It

is clear from the statement that she was forcibly raped by the petitioner

without her consent, though thereafter she had sexual intercourse with the

petitioner on the promise that he will marry her.

BA 4317/08 -2-

4. On hearing both sides, I find that this is not a fit case to grant

anticipatory bail.

The application is dismissed.

K. HEMA, JUDGE.

mn.