(Prayer: For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.7 of 2014 on the file of the Respondent-Police.)

1. The Petitioner, who is arrayed as Accused, apprehends arrest at the hands of the Respondent-Police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 6 of Protection of Child from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 r/w. 376 of I.P.C., in Crime No.7 of 2014 on the file of the Respondent-Police and hence, seeks Anticipatory Bail.

2. It is very sad state of affairs that for an alleged offences committed by 59 years old man against a 13 year old girl, who was sexually assaulted and made her pregnant and when the case is booked under Section 6 of Protection of child from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 r/w. 376 of I.P.C., he has come forward with the Application seeking Anticipatory Bail to project himself clean before the society.

3. The Petitioner has filed this Petition that one Ulagammai has given a Complaint against the Petitioner that the Petitioner has rapped the girl without her consent and she is a minor. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is having one female and two male children and his daughter is married and the male children are not married.

4. According to the Petitioner, he is a local villager, the de-facto Complainant and her destitute mother used to visit the Petitioners house frequently and the de facto Complainant worked as a helper in Indian Cloth Store at Pallathur and helped her mother at house maid works. Further, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner has not committed any offence and he is an innocent and in order to damage the dignity of the Petitioner, with an ulterior motive, the Complaint has been made.

5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) relied upon the Complaint which is reflected in the FIR wherein it has been stated that the minor girl could not continue her education and stopped her studies in the middle of 9th standard and her mother used to go for construction work in the morning at 07.00 a.m. and return in the evening. The de facto Complainant used to be alone at home. The Petitioner was residing close to the de facto Complainants house. One day the Petitioner came to the de facto Complainants house and asked her to come out and when the de facto Complainant came out, the Petitioner took her to the back side of the house and removed her dress and indulged in intercourse and thereafter asked her to wear the dress and he gave a sum of Rs.20/- to the de facto Complainant to buy eatables and threatened her that the incident should not be informed to any one. On several occasions, the Petitioner used to visit the house of the de facto Complainant and had intercourse. As the de facto Complainants stomach found to be big, the de facto Complainants mother took the de facto Complainant to the hospital on 11.04.2014 wherein the Doctor examined the de facto Complainant and confirmed six months pregnancy.

6. At that time, the de facto Complainant informed her mother about the incident and in turn, her mother informed the same to the friends, relatives and others. When the mother the de facto Complainant along with others asked the Petitioner about the incident, he has stated that he is not responsible for the pregnancy of the victim girl and he has not rapped the minor girl. Thereafter, the Complaint was given to the police and the case has been registered by Kothamangalam All Women Police Station in Crime No.7 of 2014 under Section 6 of Protection of Child from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 r/w Sections 376 & 506(i), IPC on 14.05.2014. Whether the Petitioner has committed rape or not is a point to be decided based on evidence. The crime alleged against the Petitioner is a serious one.

7. Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer in Rafiq v. State of U.P., 1980 (4) SCC 262 , [LQ/SC/1980/333] has observed that when a woman is ravished, what is inflicted is not mere physical injury, but the deep sense of some deathless shamejudicial response to human rights cannot be blunted by legal bigotry.

8. Justice Arijit Pasayat in the Judgment in Dinesh v. State of Rajasthan, 2006 (3) SCC 771 , [LQ/SC/2006/182] has mentioned that while a murderer destroys the physical frame of the victim, a rapist degrades and defiles the soul of a helpless female. In Bodhisatwa v. Ms. Subdhra Chakraborty, 1996 (1) SCC 490 , [LQ/SC/1995/1331] the Apex Court has held that rape as an offence which is violative of the fundamental right of a person guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Apex Court further held that rape is a crime not only against the person of a woman, it is a crime against the entire society. It destroys the entire physical of a woman and pushes her into deep emotional cries. Rape is therefore, the most hated crime. It is a crime against the basic human rights and is a violation of the victims most cherished right, namely, the right to life which includes the right to live with human dignity contained in Article 21.

9. For sake of convenience, Section 6 of Protection of Child from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 is also extracted below:

6. Punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault.Whoever, commits aggravated penetrative sexual assault, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.

10. Since it is a serious crime and if the averments are proved, the Petitioner is liable to face punishment for not less than 10 years, this Court is of the opinion that Anticipatory Bail cannot be granted.

11. Even though the prosecution will have to establish the case through evidence, it is not a case for Anticipatory Bail. Even if the Petitioner had approached this Court after arrest for bail, this Court would have dismissed the Bail Application.

12. As the offence is against the society, this Court expects a speedy action by the lower Court. The speedy trial is required, as, in case, the allegations are proved, the culprit should not be allowed to go scot fee on the ground that he is very old.

13. The Honble Supreme Court is State of Maharashtra and Another v. Mohamed Sajid Husain Mohamed S. Husain and Others, 2008 (1) SCC 213 [LQ/SC/2007/1236] held that while granting Anticipatory Bail, the Court must record reasons therefor. Parameters for grant of Anticipatory Bail in such a serious offence being under Section 376, IPC are required to be satisfied.

14. In Shyam Narain v. Stage NCT of Delhi, 2013 (7) SCC 77 [LQ/SC/2013/587] the Honble Supreme Court, in a case where eight years old girl was brutally raped, has observed that young girl was dealt with animal passion and her dignity and purity of physical frame was shattered. With the efflux of time, she would grow up with a traumatic experience, an unforgettable shame. She may not be able to assert the honour of a women for no fault of hers. When she suffers, collective at large also suffers such a singular crime creates an atmosphere of fear which is historically abhorred by society and demands just punishment from the Court. In that case also, the Appellant/Accused came to the house of the victim when the parents were away and also contended that the Accused was a father of four children.

15. The Supreme Court has held that just punishment alone satisfies the collective crime of society and also serious as a deterrent. The Apex Court has also held the crime against the women and children more particularly rape is a monstrous burial of dignity the women in the darkness and it is a crime against the holy body of a women and he soul of the society.

16. Even though in this case the prosecution will have to establish the case, the aforesaid narration of facts and reference to the decisions of the Apex Court are made not only to reject the Anticipatory Bail, but also ensure that no Bail Application is filed/entertained. It is not a case for Anticipatory Bail and hence the Petition is dismissed.