Loading...

Sunil vs State Of Kerala on 30 September, 2008

Kerala High Court
Sunil vs State Of Kerala on 30 September, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 5822 of 2008()


1. SUNIL, S/O. VASU, KUZHAKKETHIL VEEDU,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



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

2. DEPUTY SUPERINTEDENT OF POLICE,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA

 Dated :30/09/2008

 O R D E R
                               K.HEMA, J.
                              ===========
                 Bail Application No.5822 of 2008
                 ===============================
            Dated this the 30th day of September, 2008.

                               O R D E R

This is a petition for anticipatory bail.

2. The alleged offences are under Sections365, 364(A),

376, 507(ii) IPC and Section 3 of Scheduled Castes and

Schedules Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. According to the

prosecution, the petitioner allegedly committed rape on de facto

complainant and he had sexual relationship with her thereafter on

promise to marry her, on several occasions. Even though she

insisted that they have to conduct a register marriage, before

they indulge in sexual relationship, she was raped, ignoring her

request.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted as per the

allegations, offence under Section 376 IPC is involved. The de

facto complainant’s case is that she was living with the petitioner,

as husband and wife, on the promise given by the petitioner to

marry her. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted

that the de facto complainant has gone abroad and she is living

with another person. Therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted,

it is submitted.

Bail Application No.5822 of 2008 2

4. Learned public prosecutor opposed the bail application

and submitted that the 1st accused committed rape, without

consent even though she insisted that they can have relationship

only after registering the marriage. As per instructions, the de

facto complainant is abroad at present but the allegation that she

is living with another person is not correct.

5. On hearing both sides and on considering nature of the

allegations made, I am satisfied that it is not a fit case to grant

anticipatory bail. The complaint was filed as early as on

29.8.2003 and the petitioner was not available for arrest, for the

past more than five years.

6. Therefore the petitioner is directed to surrender before

the Magistrate Court concerned or before the investigating officer

and co-operate with the investigation, within one month from

today.

With this direction, the petition is dismissed.

K.HEMA, JUDGE.

bkn/-

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