Aneesh B. v. State Of Kerala

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015/25TH BHADRA, 1937 Bail Appl..No. 5332 of 2015 () ------------------------------- CRIME NO. 1188/2015 OF PEECHI POLICE STATION, TRISSUR DISTRICT ----------------- PETITIONER/ACCUSED :

-------------------------------- ANEESH B., AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.BAHULEYAN, RESIDING AT MUNDAKATH, ALAPPADU KARUNAGAPPALLY VILLAGE, KARUNGAPPALLY TALUK, PIN BY ADV. SRI.R.MANOJ RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT :

--------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682031 (ON BEHALF OF SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PEECHHI POLICE STATION) BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.R.REMA THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-09-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

bp

A. HARIPRASAD, J.

------------------------------ Bail Appl. No.5332 of 2015 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of September 2015

O R D E R

Petition filed under Sec.438 Cr.P.C.

2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.1188 of 2015 of Peechi Police station registered for the offence punishable under Sec.376 of the Indian Penal Code. It is alleged that the petitioner, being a friend of the defacto complainant's husband, exploited the marital bickerings between the defacto complainant and her husband and established a relationship with the defacto complainant. Thereafter, on the promise to marry, he committed rape of the defacto complainant on several occasions over a period of time.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Pubic Prosecutor.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the defacto complainant's husband was involved in an offence earlier. The petitioner helped the complainant

Bail Appl. No.5332 of 2015 2 in the other case, so that the defacto complainant's husband was enmical towards him. Hence a false complaint is alleged against him through his wife.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application contending that his statement also reveals that the accused is involved in this case.

6. Considering the nature of allegations in this case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

In the result, the bail application is dismissed. Sd/- A. HARIPRASAD JUDGE / True Copy / NS P.A. To Judge