Kerala High Court
Solly Sebastian vs State Of Kerala on 28 September, 2012
Author: P.Bhavadasan
Bench: P.Bhavadasan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN
FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/6TH ASWINA 1934
Bail Appl..No. 7069 of 2012 ()
------------------------------
(CRIME NO. 752/2012 OF THE KANNAMALY POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT)
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
--------------------------------
SOLLY SEBASTIAN, AGED 26 YEARS
S/O.SEBASTIAN, CHERUTHALAKKAL HOUSE
SOUTH CHELLANAM, KOCHI - 682 008.
BY ADVS.SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.)
SRI.M.H.HANIS
RESPONDENTS/STATE AND COMPLAINANT:
-------------------------------------------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.
2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KANNAMALY POLICE STATION,
KOCHI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682 008.
R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI. RAJESH VIJAYAN
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 28-09-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
BP
P.BHAVADASAN, J.
---------------------------------------------
B.A. No.7069 of 2012
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 28th day of September, 2012
O R D E R
This is an application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking anticipatory bail.
2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.752/2012 of Kannamaly Police Station, for having committed offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The crime was registered on a complaint filed by one Mary Ajeesha alleging that the accused had promised to marry her and both had sexual intercourse for a long period. The complaint was lodged only on 10.6.2012, on the basis of which a crime was registered only on 14.9.2012. The petitioner says all allegations are false made with the sole intention to compel the petitioner to marry the alleged victim. It is pointed out that the petitioner is falsely implicated in the case with ulterior motive. He claims that he is innocent. At any rate, the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that no offence is committed under Section 376 IPC.
3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition. The investigation is at the infant stage.
4. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the records made available, it is felt that this is a fit case where extraordinary jurisdiction needs to be exercised in favour of the petitioner.
B.A. No.7069 of 2012 2
5. The petition is allowed as follows:
1) The petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer on or before 8.10.2012, who after interrogation shall produce the petitioner before the JFCM concerned, who on application for bail filed by the petitioner shall release him on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.10,000/-
(Rupees ten thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the JFCM concerned.
2) The learned Magistrate shall ensure the identity of the sureties and the veracity of the tax receipts, before granting bail.
3) The petitioner shall make available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer as and when required by him.
4) The petitioner shall not tamper or attempt to tamper with the evidence and influence or try to influence the witnesses.
5) If any of the condition is violated, the bail granted shall stand cancelled and the JFCM concerned, of being satisfied of the said fact, may take such proceedings as are available to him in law.
P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE cms