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
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
With this direction, the petition is dismissed.