IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 6TH ASWINA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 6710 of 2011() ----------------------------- OS.343/2004 of MUNSIFF COURT,HARIPAD CRIME NO.441/2011 OF KAREELAKULANGARA POLICE STATION ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT .................... PETITIONERS : ACCUSED NO.1 AND 2 -------------------------------------- 1. SUBI CHANDRAN,AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,RESIDING AT ANIZHAM,CHEPPAD WARD,EVOOR NORTH,CHEPPAD. 2. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,AGED 75 YEARS, RESIDING AT ANIZHAM,CHEPPAD WARD,EVOOR NORTH, CHEPPAD. BY ADV. SRI.R.SUNIL KUMAR SMT.A.SALINI LAL RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANTS --------------------------- STATE OF EKRALA REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA THROUGH S.I OF POLICE KAREELAKULANGARA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.MANU THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Bail Appln.No.6710 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of September, 2011 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.441 of 2011 of Kareelakulangara Police Station, Alappuzha District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 323 and 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) and (xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 3. The prosecution case is that on 30/07/2011 at 6.30 P.M., the accused persons destroyed fencing of the compound of the de facto complainant and called the de facto complainant by the caste name. It is also alleged that accused No.1 manhandled the de facto complainant with a stick and others beat her with hands. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the father of the de facto complainant had filed a petition on an earlier occasion alleging offence under the Scheduled Bail Appln.No.6710/2011 : 2 : Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act only to see that they do not get bail. However, after investigation, the police found that the allegations were false. It is submitted that the present attempt is to see that the petitioners are detained in jail. 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and also on perusing the Case Diary, I am also of the view that it is necessary to protect the interests of the petitioners. 6. The offence alleged against the petitioners including an offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 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 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 Bail Appln.No.6710/2011 : 3 : (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. 7. 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 the petitioners to appear before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Haripad, within two weeks and move for regular bail. When such an application is filed, the learned Magistrate shall grant bail to the petitioners on such conditions as may be deemed fit and proper. The Bail Application is disposed of as above. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE skj