High Court Kerala High Court

Shanraj vs State Of Kerala on 14 December, 2007

Kerala High Court
Shanraj vs State Of Kerala on 14 December, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl No. 7708 of 2007()


1. SHANRAJ, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.THYAGARAJAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



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

                For Petitioner  :SRI.AJAYA KUMAR. G

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :14/12/2007

 O R D E R
                              R.BASANT, J
                      ------------------------------------
                       B.A.No.7708 of 2007
                      -------------------------------------
            Dated this the 14th day of December, 2007

                                  ORDER

Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner faces allegations

for offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 376 I.P.C. The

alleged victim is a young woman aged about 18 years. Crime

has been registered on the basis of a complaint filed by the

defacto complainant before the learned Magistrate and referred

by the Magistrate to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. It

would appear that admittedly a marriage was solemnised

between the petitioner and the victim. Such marriage was

solemnised under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act. The

spouses are at loggerheads now. Proceedings are pending before

the matrimonial court. Declaration of nullity of marriage has

been sought by the wife. Long later, she has filed this complaint

alleging commission of offences of rape, abduction etc.

Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehends imminent

arrest.

B.A.No.7708 of 2007 2

2. The learned Public Prosecutor after taking instructions

submits that while it is true that Crime 393 of 2007 of Parippally

Police Station has been registered on the basis of the allegations

raised by the defacto complainant, investigation has revealed

that it is not necessary to arrest the petitioner or to further

proceed against him. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that

the petitioner shall not be arrested in this case. In these

circumstances I find that the apprehension of the petitioner is

without any basis. This application for anticipatory bail is, in

these circumstances, dismissed accepting the submissions of the

learned Public Prosecutor.

3. If at any later point of time it is found necessary to

arrest the petitioner, such arrest shall not be effected without

taking prior permission of this Court, it is further directed.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-