IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 18TH JULY 2008 / 27TH ASHADHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 4537 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.125/2008 OF AMBALAVAYAL POLICE STATION PETITIONERS ---------------------------- 1. SAIDALAVI, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.ABDULLAKUTTY, KUNDUPUZHAKKAL HOUSE, RESIDING AT AYIRAMKOLLY, AMBALAVAYAL. 2. ABDULLAKUTTY, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.MOIDEENKUTTY, KUNDUPUZHA HOUSE, RESIDING AT AYIRAMKOLLY, AMBALAVAYAL. BY ADV. SRI.M.T.BALAN SMT.B.VIJUBALA RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 4537 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 18th day of July, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 326 read with section 34 IPC and section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. According to the prosecution, while the defacto-complainant who is a tribal woman, after consuming liquor, was proceeding to her house, accused 1 and 2 assaulted her with a stick on the allegation that she abused them. She gave First Information Statement to that effect and a crime was registered under the above sections against two named persons. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is an attempt to falsely implicate the petitioners also in the offence. Two persons were named in the F.I.R. by the defacto-complainant, while the First Information Statement was given by her. But, subsequently an attempt is made to delete one of the accused referred to in the F.I.R. and include the petitioners as accused in the crime. The petitioners are absolutely innocent BA 4537/2008 -2- of the allegations made. They are sought to be arrayed as accused only due to political influence. 4. This application is opposed, since offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is involved. However, it is submitted that one of the persons who was named in the F.I.R. has been deleted from the array of the accused and the petitioners are sought to be arrayed as accused in the crime as accused 2 and 3. Their involvement was revealed on arrest of the 1st accused. The defacto- complainant also mentioned about the involvement of the petitioners on subsequent questioning. The defacto-complainant is only a tribal woman who may not know the implications of the omissions in the First Information Statement, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides it is clear that the defacto-complainant was in a position to identify the assailants from the spot and she had also identified them and named them in the First Information Statement. She has not implicated any persons other than the persons mentioned in the First Information Statement. As per the First Information Statement, only two persons are involved in the crime and they are not the petitioners. As per the First Information Statement, assailants committed the offence on the allegation that the defacto-complainant abused them. There is no whisper in BA 4537/2008 -3- the complaint that it was because of difference in their caste that the offence was committed. Merely because the victim is a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, the offence under section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act will not be attracted, especially in the absence of an allegation that the offence was committed by the accused on their not being members of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. 6. Taking all the facts into consideration, I find that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners and the following order is passed: - 1)Petitioners shall surrender before the Investigating Officer and make themselves available for interrogation. 2) Thereafter, in the event of their arrest, they shall be produced before the Magistrate concerned in accordance with law. 3) On production of the petitioners before the Magistrate and if any bail application is filed, the petitioners shall be released on bail on their executing a bond for Rs. 25,000/- each with solvent sureties each for the like amount to the BA 4537/2008 -4- satisfaction of the learned Magistrate on condition that they shall co-operate with the investigation and appear before the Investigating Officer as and when directed. The application is allowed as above. K. HEMA, JUDGE. mn.