MOHAMMED BASHEER Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above petition is for anticipatory bail. Petitioner is Deputy Superintendent of Police, Narcotic Cell, Aluva. He has approached this Court for anticipatory bail on the apprehension that he has been implicated as an accused in Crime No. 5/96 of the Vanitha Police Station, Ernakulam. Petitioner was unsuccessful in his attempt to get anticipatory bail from the Sessions Court, Ernakulam. Learned Sessions Judge expressed a doubt as to the actual involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the offence but refused to grant bail on the ground that "any connection with the case is bad enough".

(2.) One Seena (who is said to be a minor) along with one Sunny was arrested by the Central Police, Ernakulam alleging offences punishable under S.3 and 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. Subsequently, Seena was released on bail.

(3.) On the basis of the statement made by Seena, Crime No. 5/96 was registered by the Vanitha Police Station, Ernakulam. In her statement, she had stated that she was abducted by one Ajitha Beegom and sold to one Suresh. Suresh utilised her for making money by forcing her to have sexual intercourse with many persons. Suresh sold her to one Sunny, who also used her for the shameful business. In the course of her statement, she referred to the petitioner. According to her, Suresh left her in the quarters of the petitioner at Aluva. The allegation is that the petitioner committed rape on her. Originally, there were only three accused; (1) Ajitha (2) Suresh and (3) Sunny. It was only on 14.8.1996 that the petitioner was made an accused. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no offence has been made out against the petitioner and that he has been falsely implicated. He referred to the statement made by Seena with respect to the petitioner and said that it was a cooked up story and cannot be believed for a moment. He also submitted that from the records, it can be found that Seena was not a minor. Further, he submitted that even if the statement are believed, no offence is made out against the petitioner, unless it is shown that the complainant was a minor at the relevant time.