IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 1718 of 2008()
1. VINOD, S/O. VILASINI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.SALIM V.S.
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :25/03/2008
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
B.A.No.1718 of 2008
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of March, 2008
ORDER
Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner faces allegations
in a crime registered alleging offences punishable under Section
376 I.P.C and 3(1)(xii) of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The petitioner is a person aged
about 27 years. The victim/defacto complainant is a girl born on
09.02.91 as per her school register. The alleged incident took
place on 11.03.07 and thereafter on a couple of days. The
petitioner had induced the victim to go to his house on the
representation that someone has called her over the telephone.
When she went to his bedroom, the door was closed and she was
raped. This continued for a couple of days. Long later the
defacto complainant lodged a complaint and the crime was
registered on 20.05.07. Investigation is in progress. The
petitioner apprehends imminent arrest.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is absolutely innocent. The facts and circumstances of
this case must impress upon this Court, the indisputable fact that
B.A.No.1718 of 2008 2
the sexual intercourses must have been with the consent of the
girl who had crossed the aged of consent ie. 16 years on 9.2.07
going by her age certificates. In any view of the matter, the
petitioner does not deserve to endure the trauma of arrest and
detention. He may be granted anticipatory bail, it is prayed.
3. The learned Public Prosecutor first of all raised a
technical objection that in view of the allegation under Section 3
(1)(xii) of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act and in the light of Section 18 of the said Act,
anticipatory bail cannot be granted to the petitioner. But for the
offence under Section 376 I.P.C also, the petitioner cannot be
granted anticipatory bail considering the young age of the girl and
the nature of the allegations that have been raised against the
petitioner.
4. I have considered all the relevant inputs. I am not
persuaded to agree that the petitioner is entitled for grant of
anticipatory bail. I agree with the learned Public Prosecutor that
Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act is a complete bar to the claim for anticipatory
bail of the petitioner who faces allegations under Section 3(1)(xii)
of the said Act. I am satisfied, in these circumstances, that this is
B.A.No.1718 of 2008 3
a fit case where the petitioner must appear before the learned
Magistrate having jurisdiction or the Investigating Officer and then
seek regular bail in the normal and ordinary course.
5. This application is, in these circumstances, dismissed,
but I may hasten to observe that if the petitioner surrenders
before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate and
applies for bail after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor
in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must proceed to
pass appropriate orders on merits and expeditiously.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-