This is an application filed by the sole accused in Crime No.427/14 of Vagamon Police Station for anticipatory bail under section 438 of Cr.P.C., since he apprehends arrest in the above crime.
2. The prosecution allegation is that the petitioner committed rape on the de facto complainant on a day in February 2014 and also on the next day, and thereafter, the petitioner threatened the victim. So, according to the prosecution, the petitioner has committed the offence punishable under section 376 of Indian Penal Code.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the alleged incident was occurred in February 2014, the crime was registered only on 2.9.2014 and there is substantial delay in lodging the complaint. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that the de facto complainant has got a case that she was threatened by showing her photographs along with some other persons and the said fact itself shows that the case of the de facto complainant cannot be believed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is falsely implicated in the above crime as he had seen the illicit connection of the de facto complainant with another person and the said fact was informed to the husband of the de facto complainant and therefore he is falsely implicated.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
6. True, the crime was registered on 2.9.2014 with respect to the alleged incident occurred during the month of February 2014, but the said fact alone, according to me, is not sufficient to grant anticipatory bail, since the allegation against the petitioner is a serious one. It is also a fact that the victim in the present case is aged 40 years and that fact itself is not sufficient to hold that the sexual intercourse, if any, was with her consent, particularly when the de facto complainant in her FIS has raised serious allegations against the petitioner, who is not a stranger but the friend of the husband of the de facto complainant. The crime was registered only on 2.9.2014 and the investigation is in progress. Therefore, this Court will not be justified in granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner at this stage.
In the result, this petition is devoid of any merit and accordingly the same is dismissed.
ami/ //True copy// P.A.to Judge Sd/-
V.K.MOHANAN, Judge.