Petitioner herein is the 6th accused in Crime No.889 of 2014 of Gandhinagar Police Station, Kottayam district registered for offences under Sections 366(A) and 376 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 2. The allegations raised in Annexure 1 First Information Report in the aforementioned crime is that the minor girl was missing as complained by her parents and that it is suspected that she had gone away with the second accused Saranya and that the police was immediately to catch her and got information that she was produced at Kuravilangadu Police Station and accordingly, the police party had reached the Police Station along with the relatives of the minor girl and the relatives identified before the police that the girl at Kuravilangadu Police Station is the one about whose missing there was complaint. The girl was subjected to medical examination and on finding that she was subjected to sexual union, the police had questioned the girl in detail, whereby it was revealed that since March 2013, she was staying in her own aunt Maya's (A1) house and that accused Nos. 3 and 4 had sexually used her repeatedly and accused No.2 Saranya had forced her to accompany her to Ettumanoor in July 2014 and thereby the girl was made available to accused Nos.5 to 10 on several days and the said accused (accused Nos.5 - 10) had repeatedly used the girl for sexual union and accordingly, Crime No.889 of 2014 has been registered by the Gandhinagar Police Station, Kottayam.
3. Sri.M.J.Thomas, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner, who is accused No6, is absolutely innocent of all the allegations and that he was a casual visitor of the scene and more detailed averments are made in that regard to project his total detachment from the alleged incident.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor would strongly submit that the offence is serious and the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for the smooth and fair conduct of the investigation.
5. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor and taking into account the totality of the facts and circumstances in this case, this court will not inclined to exercise the discretion taking into account the gravity and heinousness of the crime that has been inflicted against the minor girl. This Court is not concerned with the truth or otherwise of the version projected by the defence in this petition. Police authorities have taken action in the normal course of their conduct of the duties and responsibilities and there are no reasons to believe that the police have foisted a false case against the petitioner. Moreover, since many accused are involved and lady relatives of the minor girl are involved in this grave crime, more details can be obtained by the investigating agency only by a better investigation of the matter and the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor is that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is warranted and the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor cannot be brushed aside by this Court.
Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in this case and the application for anticipatory bail stands dismissed.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE.
Vdv //True Copy// P.A to Judge