The petitioner, who apprehends arrest in Crime No.738 of 2014 of Ponnani Police Station, Malappuram district, registered for offences under Sections 376, 341 and 506(i) of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 4, 11 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, has filed this application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Sri.P.G.Suresh, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner is absolutely innocent of the offences and that he has been falsely implicated in this crime by his father-in-law, who is the father of the minor victim girl, due to personal rivalry. Petitioner has married the sister of the minor victim girl. The petitioner would submit that there was some differences of opinion between him and his father-in-law and so, baseless allegations are made against the petitioner and he has been thus falsely implicated in this crime.
3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the offences in question were reported before the police authorities on 26.08.2014 that the minor victim girl has repeatedly sexually abused by her sister's husband (petitioner) since 2011 when she was only 13 years old and was studying in 8th standard. She has also informed the police that the accused/ petitioner herein had taken her nude photographs and had threatened her of transmitting the same in the internet and the petitioner had threatened that he would kill the de facto complainant and her sister if she reveals this incident to anyone. Therefore, she could not disclose the offences of the petitioner at an early point of time, it is submitted.
4. The application for anticipatory bail in relation to this crime made by the petitioner was rejected by the Sessions Court, Manjeri on 04.09.2014 in B.A No.1315 of 2014. The offences alleged against the petitioner are very serious. The minor victim girl was hardly 13 years old when the petitioner committed the aforementioned offences in the year 2011 and the petitioner had taken nude photographs of the minor girl and threated her of transmitting the same in internet.
6. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and on evaluation of the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the view that this is not a fit case to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of preferred-arrest bail to the petitioner, who is accused of such serious allegations thereof. This Court has no hesitation in dismissing the application and accordingly, it stands dismissed.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE.
vdv //True Copy// P.A to Judge