The petitioner is the accused in crime No.378/2014 of the Cheemeni Police Station alleged to have committed offences under Section 376 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The version of the prosecution case is that on 7.9.2014 at about 9.30 p.m. the petitioner initially attempted to commit the above offence while the defacto complainant was sleeping, which was resisted by her and later in the middle of the dead night at about 3 a.m., the incident of rape happened. Learned counsel for the petitioner would strongly urge that it is highly improbable version projected in the prosecution case that such an incident of rape could have happened in a house, in which, three others were also present. 2. The learned Prosecutor would submit that the defacto complainant is 29 year old wife of a deaf and dumb young man belonging to Scheduled Caste Community and that he had got drunk in the evening and the lady could not go to her home alone, and therefore, she had chosen to shelter her parental uncle's house. The 1st accused is the paternal cousin of the defacto complainant belonging of the Scheduled Caste community. The narration in the prosecution case is that the lady defacto complainant was lying on the floor of a room in that house and her aunt was sleeping on the bed. The other members of the family, viz., 1st accused and his father, who is paternal uncle and who is also arrayed as accused No2, were in the other room. After about 9.30 p.m. the 1st accused had approached her in the night while she was sleeping and that aunt was also sleeping and without much disturbance, she resisted the attempt of accused No.1. It was later, at 3 a.m. when she was in deep sleep that accused No.1 had again gone to her room, in which, she was sleeping and committed the offence. She was constrained to leave the house of the accused and on the next day morning, since it was a serious incident, she complained to her near relatives and on coming to know that she has complained, accused No.2, who is the father of accused No.1, was quite angry at her and had manhandled her and beaten her with broom stick etc. I am not at all impressed with the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that this is a highly probable chain of events. It is the solemn duty of the prosecution to arrive at the unvarnished truth of the matter by the conduct of fair and effective investigation into an offence involving alleged rape of a young married woman aged 29, which is said to have been committed by none other than her paternal cousin.
3. The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioner herein was arrested on 12.9.2014 and has opposed the bail application.
4. Having considered the submissions of Sri.Blaze.K.Jose, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State and on a careful evaluation of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am constrained to hold that this is not a fit case to exercise discretion to grant bail to this accused at this stage. Matters relating to grant or refusal of bail are determined by various complex factors and the interest of the public and the State is a very vital aspect and all such factors have to be taken into account before the court exercising discretion to grant bail in such cases. This Court is of the view that the interest of the State and the public requires that discretion should not be exercised in this case at this stage. Accordingly, this application for bail is dismissed.
Sd/-
sdk+ ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.S. to Judge