IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 6081 of 2009()
1. SHAJI P.C. S/O. CHELLAPPAN, PLAPPALLIL
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.BABU KUMAR
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :21/10/2009
O R D E R
K.T. SANKARAN, J.
---------------------------
B.A. No. 6081 of 2009
------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of October, 2009
O R D E R
This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.1 in
Crime No.336 of 2009 of Ponkunnam Police Station.
2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under
Sections 328 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 67 of
the Information Technology Act.
3. The gist of the prosecution case is the following:
The de facto complainant was an employee in Wintec
Computers run by the petitioner. The allegation is that after
administering some intoxicating substances or sedatives in food
and drinks, the petitioner subjected her to sexual intercourse.
Later, he took the nude photographs of the de facto complainant.
She was being threatened by the petitioner showing the nude
photographs to her and he indulged in sexual intercourse with
her against her will. The petitioner even threatened that the nude
photographs would be published. The de facto complainant was
appointed as a teacher in a school. Later, on account of the
B.A. No. 6081/ 2009
2
harassment by the petitioner, she had to resign that job and
come back again to the computer centre of the petitioner. Sexual
harassment continued. Later, she she got a job in Ernakulam.
There, she met another man and fell in love with him. That man
proposed to marry her. The allegation is that the petitioner had
shown the nude photographs of the petitioner to that man and
thereupon the marriage proposal was withdrawn. It is also
alleged that the petitioner published the nude photographs in
mobile phones and internet. The petitioner was arrested on
20/8/2009 and he was remanded to judicial custody. The
petitioner moved an application for bail before the learned
Sessions Judge, which was dismissed as per the order dated
5/10/2009. The learned Sessions Judge accepted the
submissions made by the learned Public Prosecutor that if the
petitioner is released on bail, he would intimidate and influence
the witnesses and interfere with the smooth investigation of the
case.
4. Taking into account the facts and circumstances, the
nature of the offence and the allegations levelled against the
B.A. No. 6081/ 2009
3
petitioner, I am of the view that the petitioner cannot be granted
bail at this stage. The investigation is not over.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that some
more vital materials are to be collected in the course of
investigation. It is submitted that if the petitioner is released on
bail at this stage, he would tamper with the evidence, influence
and intimidate the witnesses and interfere with the course of
investigation. In view of the intricate nature of the materials to
be collected to prove the offence and also taking into account the
various incidents alleged to have been taken place, it cannot be
said that the apprehension voiced by the learned Public
Prosecutor is without substance.
For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is
dismissed.
K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE
scm