Kerala High Court
Bail Appl./9628/2012 of ANITH ALIAS POPY Vs STATE OF KERALA on 31 December 2012
COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/10TH POUSHA 1934 Bail Appl..No. 9628 of 2012 () ------------------------------ CRIME NO.410/2012 OF MELUKAVU POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. ............... PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN
MONDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/10TH POUSHA 1934
Bail Appl..No. 9628 of 2012 ()
------------------------------
CRIME NO.410/2012 OF MELUKAVU POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
...............
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
-----------------------------------
AJITH ALIAS POPY, S/O.SAJI,
AGED 21 YEARS, VAYALMUNDKKAL HOUSE, PANDIYAMMAVU BHAGOM, MELUKAVU KARA, MELUKAVU VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM.
BY ADV. SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ.
RESPONDENTS:------------------------
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HONORABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, THROUGH CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE STATION IN CRIME NO.410/2012 OF MELUKAVU POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM-686 001.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.SHIBU JOSEPH.
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31-12-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
rs.
P. BHAVADASAN, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 31[st] day of December, 2012.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
Petitioner stands accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 452 and 376 I.P.C. andSections 3 and 4 of Protection of Children from SexualOffences Act.
2. The petitioner says that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. According to him he has notcommitted any act which would constitute an offences andthat he and the victim are in love. At any rate, according tohim, he has been in custody from 2.12.2012 and hiscontinued custody is unnecessary. He therefore seeks bail.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor very vehementlyopposed the application. It is pointed out that the allegationsagainst the petitioner are grave and serious and thepetitioner is not as innocent as he pretends to be. A perusalof the FIS given by the victim would sufficiently show that B.A.9628/2012.
the petitioner has committed the offences. It is also pointed out that the investigation is going on and releasing thepetitioner now on bail may affect the investigation.
4. CD was made available for perusal. It is seen that the victim was being constantly harassed by thepetitioner and she informed the same to her parents. On aday when the parents of the victim were not in the house,the petitioner, who is a resident nearby, came to her house,made her unconscious and thereafter her body wasravished. The FIS was lodged within a few days after theincident. There is nothing to disbelieve the version given bythe victim as of now. The medical report as such may notcompletely support the prosecution allegation. It is pointedout by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner isalso involved in another crime of having kidnapped awoman. The claim of the petitioner that he is innocentcannot accepted. The apprehension expressed by thelearned Public Prosecutor that in case the petitioner is B.A.9628/2012.
released on bail, it may hamper the investigation seems tobe well founded.
5. Considering the nature of the offences and the manner in which the offences were committed, the gravityand seriousness of the offences and also the fact thatinvestigation is still going on, it is felt that the petitionercannot be released on bail now.
Therefore this application is dismissed.
sb.
P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE