(1.) The petitioner who is the 2nd accused in Crime No. 1396/2014 of Varkala Police is the applicant herein seeking the grant of regular bail by invoking the jurisdiction under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The offences alleged in the afore mentioned crime are those under sections 366, 366(A), 376(D) of Indian Penal Code and sections 3(a) and 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.
(2.) The petitioner claims that he is innocent of all the allegations raised against him in the aforesaid crime and he has been falsely implicated in the crime and he has been in judicial custody since 17.08.2014. Sri. M.L. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that accused no. 11 in this crime has already been granted regular bail in this case as per Order dated 30.09.2014 passed by this Court in B.A. 6504/2014, since the said accused no. 11 was arrested on 17.08.2014. The said order was passed mainly on the ground that accused no. 11 had suffered custodial detention since 17.08.2014 and since he had suffered detention for more than 42 days in that case. But the learned Public Prosecutor would submit that in that case there was no allegation that accused no. 11 had committed rape on a minor girl and that in this case the petitioner is alleged to have committed rape on not only a lady aged 24 years but also on a minor girl aged 16 years. Sri. M.L. Suresh Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that further custodial detention of the petitioner is not necessary for the purpose of investigation in this case as the petitioner has been under judicial custody for the last 53 days.
(3.) The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that though four other accused are absconding, the investigation as regards the role of this petitioner is almost over and he further urges that if this court is inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner, sufficient conditions may be imposed to safeguard and protect the interest of the prosecution.