IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 4TH OCTOBER 2011 / 12TH ASWINA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 7904 of 2011 CRIME NO.678 OF 2011 OF MUVATTUPUZHA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM PETITIONERS : ACCUSED NOS.2 TO 5: --------------------- 1. V.V. CHACKO, AGED 65 YEARS, KALAPILLIL, NORTH PIRAMADAM, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM. 2. ALIYAMMA CHACKO, AGED 56 YEARS, KALAPILLIL, NORTH PIRAMADAM, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM. 3. TINA MARY JACOB, AGED 28 YEARS, KALAPILLIL, NORTH PIRAMADAM, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM. 4. TINU SARA JACOB, D/O. V.V. CHACKO, AGED 25 YEARS, KALAPILLIL, NORTH PIRAMADAM, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.BIBIN KUMAR RESPONDENT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MUVATTUPUZHA POLICE STATION, REP. THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.MANU THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 7904 OF 2011 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 4th day of October, 2011 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.2 to 5 in Crime No.678 of 2011 of Muvattupuzha Police Station, Ernakulam District. 2. The offences alleged against the accused are under Sections 294(b), 323, 341, 406, 498A and 506(ii) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 3. The first accused is the husband of the de facto complainant. The de facto complainant stated that she belongs to CSI Malayaraya Community and thus she is a Scheduled Tribe. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. I have also gone through the case diary. B.A. NO. 7904 OF 2011 :: 2 :: 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that it is necessary to protect the interests of the petitioners as they are likely to be remanded, if they appear before Court, since offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is alleged against them. 6. The petitioners are respectively the father-in-law, mother- in-law and sisters-in-law of the de facto complainant. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the fourth petitioner is at present working in UK and, therefore, the Bail Application is not pressed in so far as it relates to the fourth petitioner, with liberty to approach this Court again as and when occasion arises. This prayer is liable to be accepted. 7. In Shanu v. State of Kerala (2000 (3) KLT 452), this Court held that the Magistrate has got power to grant bail to the accused even in cases under clauses (i) to (xv) of Section 3(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. In that case, the learned Magistrate was directed to grant bail to B.A. NO. 7904 OF 2011 :: 3 :: the accused. The decision in Shanu's case was followed by another learned single Judge in 2005 (1) KLD 250 (B.A.No.789 of 2005) and in 2005 KHC 2058 (Krishna Kumar v. State of Kerala). In Ali v. State of Kerala (2000 (2) KLT 280), it was held that there is no bar for the Magistrate for granting bail in such cases on the basis of the general principles enunciated in Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In Sukumari v. State of Kerala (2001 (1) KLT 22), it was held that Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not create an absolute bar on the Magistrate to the grant of bail to persons accused of a non-bailable offence or in respect of offences exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions. 8. After having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that this Bail Application can be disposed of by directing petitioners 1 to 3 to appear before the Magistrate having jurisdiction on or before 20.10.2011 and move for regular bail. When such an application is filed, the learned Magistrate shall grant bail to petitioners 1 to 3 on such conditions as may be deemed fit and proper. B.A. NO. 7904 OF 2011 :: 4 :: The Bail Application is closed in so far as it relates to the fourth petitioner without prejudice to the right of the fourth petitioner to approach this Court again and it is disposed of in the manner indicated above in so far as it relates to petitioners 1 to 3. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/