Manikandan R. vs State

L. Narayana Swamy, J—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government pleader appearing for the respondent - State.

Petitioner is accused in Cr. No. 182/2015 on the file of the respondent - Ullal Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 312, 313, 504 r/w Section 34 of IPC. Apprehending his arrest at the hands of the respondent Police he filed anticipatory bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

The case of the prosecution is that one Geethashree filed a complaint on 1.05.2015 with the respondent - Police alleging that during June 2009 she joined Central Research Laboratory of A.B. Shetty Memorial Institute of Dental Sciences, Mangalore on honorary basis. The petitioner - accused was working as Assistant Professor in the very same institute and pursuing his Ph.D on part time basis. It was happened to the Complainant to help the petitioner in his research work on root canal irrigants. Further, it is alleged that their professional relationship slowly turned to personal and their physical contact happened on 08.12.2009 at Nirvana Residency of Bekal, Kasargod. She further alleged that in May 2013 after completion of Ph.D., petitioner resigned and joined some other College in his native at Pondicherry. Thereafter, he avoided the Complainant, he never picked her call and not replied to her messages. Further, she alleged that during their good terms she had an abortion at Thokkottu Clinic. On the basis of this she lodged a complaint. The respondent - Police registered a case and took up investigation.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that a false case has been registered against the petitioner and he is innocent of the offences alleged. He contends being a consenting party the provisions of Section 376 of IPC cannot be attracted. There is delay of more than five years in lodging the complaint. The Complainant with an ulterior motive to wreak vengeance against this petitioner - accused had lodged the complaint. The petitioner undertakes to abide by any of the conditions that may be imposed by this court while granting the bail.

The learned Government Pleader vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner - accused on the ground that it is the petitioner - accused who involved in the crime and there are sufficient materials to prove the offence alleged against him. He contends that the prosecution has already collected materials to show that this petitioner committed rape on the victim. Further, he strenuously contended that the petitioner - accused has absconded since day one and he has not appeared before the investigating agency and assisted the investigation. Therefore, bail may not be granted and requests the court to dismiss the bail petition.

Perused the records.

On perusal of the material on record I find there is some force in the arguments of the learned counsel for petitioner that there is inordinate delay in filing the complaint. The alleged incident as contended is occurred during 2009 and the complaint came to be lodged during May 2015. The materials on record are not very clear about the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged crime. The prosecution has not placed sufficient material to prove the case against the petitioner - accused. The petitioner - accused is permanent resident of Pondicherry having deep roots in the community. Further, he is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Thus, the apprehension of the learned Government Pleader could be met with by imposing suitable conditions. Accordingly, the following:

ORDER

Bail application is allowed. Petitioner shall be released on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Cr. No. 182/2015 of the respondent Police on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand Only) with two local sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the I.O.

"1) He shall surrender before the I.O. on or before 30.08.2015.

2) He shall co-operate with the further investigation and shall attend police station whenever his presence is required by the I.O. without fail.

3) He shall not hold out threats to the prosecution witnesses and shall not try to lure them many manner.

4) He shall not involve himself in any such kind of activities.

5) He shall mark his attendance before the jurisdictional police once in a month on every second Sunday between 9 AM to 5 PM for a period of one year from the date of his surrender before Investigation Officer.

6) It is made clear that if he does not comply with any one of the conditions imposed on him, the prosecution is at liberty to seek cancellation of the bail."