S RAJAGOPAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition for bail.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is a Doctor and working as Divisional Medical Officer, Southern Railway Hospital, Madurai. He is charged for offences u/Ss. 417, 376 and 506(i), IPC, for the alleged occurrence of rape by abusing his position as a Doctor and then continued cohabitation by promising to many her and" also received Rs. 3 lakhs from the complainant, by name Parimala. Originally, the FIR did not contain Sec. 506(i), IPC, but, at the time of arrest Sec. 506(i), IPC was added. The Supreme Court directed the petitioner to surrender before the Court concerned and seek for bail, and the order on the bail application shall be passed on the same day. With this direction, the anticipatory bail petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court. But the petitioner did not appear before the Court concerned, because it was guarded and sealed. Thereafter, the petitioner was arrested by the Police on 6-3-2004.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that originally the FIR was only for Sec. 376(D), IPC, which is a bailable offence. The other offence Sec. 417, IPC, is also bailable. Sec. 506(i), IPC is not attracted at all. Further, the complainant and the petitioner were co-habitating for sometime. The complaint is an afterthought. The alleged occurrence of rape took place in the year 2002. But the complaint was given only on 2-1-2004, i.e. after two years. Further a few complaints were also given earlier and were withdrawn. The petitioner is in custody from 6-3-2004. In these circumstances, the petitioner is entitled for bail.